ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Civil Society Organisations (Financial Support)

Hugh Bayley: How much financial support the Government gave to civil society organisations in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2012-13 to date.

Nick Hurd: It is estimated that the Government committed £13.9 billion to general charities in 2009-10. As the hon. Gentleman will know, data for 2012-13 are not yet available.

Hugh Bayley: Thousands of people in every one of our constituencies depend on the services provided by voluntary bodies. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that funding for the sector will fall by £3.2 billion during the current Parliament, while the Charities Aid Foundation says that private giving to charities has fallen by 20%. The big society is shrinking. How are the Government going to give it the resources it needs to provide services for our constituents?

Nick Hurd: The Government are doing a great deal to support our charities. We are encouraging giving, volunteering and social investment, and we are trying to make it easier for charities to help us to deliver public services. There is less money around as a direct consequence of the actions, and the fiscal incontinence, of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman did not adorn. We all have a role and a responsibility to support our charities, but this Government are doing their bit.

Andrew Gwynne: That very same research by the Charities Aid Foundation clearly showed that 85% of respondents were concerned about the future financial viability of charitable giving. In view of the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), may I ask why he does not share those concerns?

Nick Hurd: I do not need any lectures from Labour Members about the extent of the pressure that the charitable sector is under. At a time when resources are
	very constrained, the Treasury has introduced new tax incentives for giving, including the gift aid small donations scheme. Between them, those incentives will be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the sector during the current Parliament. We are providing match funding for giving, and investing in new and innovative ways of encouraging it. The Government are showing a great deal of creativity in trying to connect people with the chance to give to and support charities in their communities.

Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Kent Air Ambulance, the Pilgrims Hospice in Canterbury and homelessness charities such as Porchlight and Catching Lives demonstrate that there is a healthy sector in Kent? Does he also agree that the most successful elements of the charitable sector are those that raise the bulk of the funds themselves—with some help from the state—rather than the client organisations whose number increased under the last Government?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend, who is a tireless supporter of charities in his constituency, has raised an important point. It is worth reminding the House that 75% of charities receive no income at all from the state, and that 80% of the public funding that goes to charities goes to organisations with incomes of more than £1 million. We are actively trying to encourage more charities to live within their means and raise their own money by promoting the kind of giving that I mentioned earlier.

Voluntary and Community Sector

Penny Mordaunt: What recent progress he has made in increasing capacity in the voluntary and community sector.

Nick Hurd: The Government are doing a great deal in trying to increase the capacity and capability of the sector. One of the most important things that we have done is launch the world’s first social investment institution, Big Society Capital, which will have £600 million on its balance sheet. That will enable it to increase the social investment market and make it easier for charities and social enterprises to gain access to capital.

Penny Mordaunt: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the newly formed Wymering Manor Trust in my constituency on securing the manor as a community asset? In stark contrast to the smooth running of that transfer, the obstacles that the community have encountered in trying to buy out Portsmouth football club, and the culture that they have encountered in the world of football, have been dreadful. What more can be done to help fans to own and govern their local clubs, and to stop football being a big society-free zone?

Nick Hurd: I am delighted to congratulate the trust, not least because I understand that it is chaired by Conservatives. Let me also wish the supporters of Portsmouth football club well in their endeavours. The Government are trying to help communities to realise their dreams, and if there is anything that our Department or Big Society Capital can do to support that community, my hon. Friend must let me know.

Dennis Skinner: I think that there is a different story. I visited the office of Fairplay in Derbyshire the other Friday and met the people there who look after, for instance, disabled teenagers. I have also visited various other voluntary organisations. Their story is that they are being cut left, right and centre, and are having a job making ends meet. When will the Government support the voluntary workers who are trying to rescue those people, and to help all kinds of individuals? This really has reached a chronic stage. Get something done!

Nick Hurd: We are doing a great deal. I totally accept what the hon. Gentleman says: there is a lot of pressure on charities in all our constituencies. We all know that there is less money around, but I would like to hear a little more honesty and recognition from the Opposition Benches as to why the cuts in public expenditure are necessary. They are the direct result of the fiscal incontinence of the hon. Gentleman’s party’s Government.

Gareth Thomas: As the Minister reflects on the capacity of the voluntary sector, he will surely consider in particular the capacity of the Charity Commission—which has been cut by a third on his watch—to prevent charities such as Cup Trust from being used for huge levels of tax avoidance. Is the Minister convinced that the new head of the commission understands the seriousness of the situation, and is a cross-Government plan now in place to prevent such a repeat?

Nick Hurd: Yes. Under this Government, we have sent a very clear message to the Charity Commission that we expect it to hunker down on its core responsibility of regulating the sector and protecting its integrity, and, under the new chairman, we expect that to happen.

Tax Avoidance (Government Contracts)

Simon Hughes: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that companies in receipt of Government contracts do not engage in tax avoidance schemes.

Francis Maude: In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would examine how the procurement process can be used to deter tax avoidance and evasion. I expect an announcement to be made on this matter shortly with a view to new arrangements coming into effect from 1 April.

Simon Hughes: That is very welcome news, and I hope that friends of the Cabinet Office will be able to make sure that the Chancellor announces in the Budget that we will end once and for all the possibility of taxpayers’ money funding people to avoid paying their corporate taxes. That has to end at both national level and local government contract level.

Francis Maude: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Our primary concern in public procurement is value for the taxpayer, but it is entirely legitimate to be
	concerned about ensuring that companies that are—rightly—profiting from Government contracts should be paying the proper amount of tax.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the answer simply to put out a message to all companies that if they do not pay their taxes they will not get the contract?

Francis Maude: I do not recall this ever being addressed by the previous Government. We have inherited very large numbers of extremely costly contracts where nobody has taken any interest in this subject at all.

Information Technology Management

Duncan Hames: What plans he has to achieve greater value for money from the Government’s management of information technology.

Francis Maude: Days after the coalition Government came to office, we introduced strict controls on ICT spend that saved the taxpayer £316 million last year alone, a figure verified by the National Audit Office. We have opened up procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are moving towards open standards and interoperability, and we are reopening some of the incredibly expensive and burdensome ICT contracts that we inherited from the previous Government, with a view to making significant further savings. There is much more that can be done, and much more that we will do.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome those actions. I also thank him for visiting Ark Continuity in my constituency, a company whose data centres make cloud computing possible. There are myriad data centres in local and national Government and in the wider public sector, and there are huge savings to be made. Will the Minister target this area in searching for ways to save the taxpayer money?

Francis Maude: I enjoyed my visit with my hon. Friend to Ark Continuity. It was very illuminating. There is a huge amount we can do. Data centre capacity across Government is massively underused. A huge amount of overcapacity was left in place by the outgoing Government, who had no interest in these subjects at all. We are getting to grips with it, however. We need to do more, and we will do so; there is much more money we can save.

Jon Trickett: The fact is that the NAO did not verify the savings. According to the NAO, the Department overstated its claimed IT savings probably by tens of millions of pounds. The Minister has form on this: he predicted £20 billion of savings from his quango review, but the NAO showed he barely saved a tenth of that. Perhaps the Department should propose a new ministerial baccalaureate in adding up and taking away. Since the Minister cannot get his figures right, will he now at least agree to brush up on his maths?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense. We inherited a massive Budget deficit left by a Government who were fiscally incontinent and made
	no effort to deliver any efficiency savings whatsoever. Through our efficiency programme, we have already delivered £12 billion of savings and there is much more that can be done. The outgoing Government left the public finances and Whitehall efficiency in a shockingly sorry state.

Cyber-security Partnership

Eric Ollerenshaw: What his policy is on the cyber-security partnership.

Tony Baldry: What his policy is on the cyber-security partnership.

Chloe Smith: On 25 January, the Foreign Secretary signed the World Economic Forum’s new set of principles on cyber-resilience. The UK was the first country to join that cyber-security partnership, alongside more than 70 companies and Government bodies across 15 sectors and 25 countries. That is an important step in demonstrating our leadership role on the international stage in combating cyber-threats.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has she seen the recent report by Lancaster university, which is a centre of excellence in cyber-security and she is more than welcome to visit? The report highlighted the lack of investment by so many small businesses in even the simplest systems to protect their IT systems.

Chloe Smith: I very much welcome Lancaster university’s report, which I have seen. It does show the university’s place as an academic centre of excellence for cyber-security. That research gives us valuable insights into how business is responding. I understand that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be supporting a further small and medium-sized enterprise conference with Lancaster university. The Government are bringing forward a cross-government cyber-security awareness campaign, which is aimed at SMEs. I ought to quote from the report, because I agree with its statement that small businesses should be able to
	“embrace technology and prosper without exposing themselves to unwanted business risks.”

Tony Baldry: Cyber-security should be a growth area for UK industry. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what she is doing to help promote cyber-security for the UK industrial sector?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. When we published the cyber-security strategy we made it clear that there are important opportunities for UK businesses. Our country has long-standing expertise in cyber-security, which makes us well placed to capitalise on the commercial opportunities on offer, both domestically and overseas. I can confirm to him that we have put in place measures to help promote UK products abroad, particularly through setting up a cyber-growth partnership.

Chi Onwurah: If only the Minister’s warm words on international partnerships were matched by her Government’s actions. In October, the Home Secretary announced that the UK would opt out of cross-border co-operation on tackling crime—cybercrime is, of course, predominantly
	cross-border in nature. Will the Minister confirm that position? Specifically, will we be part of the new European cybercrime centre, or are her Government more obsessed with damaging Europe than strengthening our cyber-security?

Chloe Smith: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in the Opposition Front-Bench team, although I hope that the Labour party has updated its website, as I do not believe its cyber-skills showed her in her correct place at the time she asked that question. Of course, I can offer my reassurance that the UK Government are doing all they can on tackling cybercrime, where there is much to be done. There is also much to be done in Europe.

Mark Pritchard: In developing the cyber-security strategy, will the Minister consider forming a civilian cyber-security reserve, so that people working in the IT security sector can back-fill those positions that are very specialist and where the work perhaps cannot be carried out by the Ministry of Defence?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend makes correct points about the need to ensure that we have robust skills across both the public and private sectors in respect of cyber-security. There is much to do to build our country’s capability. He will know that the MOD is taking forward the development of a cyber-reserve, and he makes sensible points about a civilian version.

Contracts Finder Website

Tom Greatrex: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Contracts Finder website.

Chloe Smith: The Prime Minister launched Contracts Finder two years ago to make Government procurement opportunities more accessible for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is precisely what that site does.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Minister for her reply and her letter, which I received this morning in reply to my question to her and her colleagues last September about the number of contracts with Atos. We know that the Government have about £3 billion-worth of contracts with Atos and in her answer she referred me to the Contracts Finder website, but a significant number of contracts were not on that site. Now that she has provided those details, will she tell me why the Cabinet Office does not include contracts renewed since 1 January 2011 given that they are renewed and extended by her Department?

Chloe Smith: Of the contracts identified in response to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiries, only seven are required to be on Contracts Finder and each of them is there. We are publishing more contract opportunities and more contract information than ever before and we are seeing an increase in the amount of business going to SMEs. Contracts Finder was designed to help suppliers, particularly SMEs, to find contract opportunities, whereas the hon. Gentleman’s Government did nothing on that in 13 years.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has just referred to what happened three years ago. Has she had an opportunity to assess why small businesses were winning such a small share of Government procurement contracts when the Government came to power?

Chloe Smith: We are absolutely serious about opening up Government business to SMEs, and it is a shame that the previous Administration appeared not to be. We have made progress: we have posted information about the opportunities, as I said in response to the previous question; we have removed bureaucratic pre-qualification processes; we have given SMEs a voice at the top table; and we have made Government more accountable through the mystery shopper service. My hon. Friend knows that it is a shame that the previous Government did not do any of those things.

Civil Service Pensions

Richard Graham: What estimate he has made of the potential savings to the Exchequer from the Government’s proposed reforms to civil service pensions. [R]

Francis Maude: The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that this Government’s reforms of public service pensions will deliver more than £430 billion of savings over the next 50 years.

Richard Graham: The Minister’s answer is good news for taxpayers, who include many of the 13 million people in this country without a pension at all, but it is also important that public sector workers receive a good pension. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the revised structure is still a defined benefit one and that it is fairer to part-time workers, who are often women, and to lower-paid workers?

Francis Maude: Public sector pensions, after the reforms are fully in place, will remain among the very best available. That is right and we are strongly in support of it, but the cost was out of control. It is now back under control.

Gregory Campbell: What discussions are the Government having with trade unions representing civil servants to ensure the smoothest possible transition?

Francis Maude: We have regular discussions at official and ministerial level with the civil service unions, which, for the most part, have adopted a constructive approach and want the change to be introduced as smoothly as possible. Those discussions continue.

National Citizen Service

Kris Hopkins: What progress he has made on his plans for the National Citizen Service.

Nick Hurd: I am delighted to say that we think that almost three times more young people took part in NCS this year and I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating those young people, who between them
	contributed some 750,000 hours of community service in their local areas. The number will grow again this year and teenagers can sign up at www.ncsyes.co.uk.

Kris Hopkins: In an era when young people must take every advantage to give themselves a competitive edge, does my hon. Friend agree that the NCS furnishes graduates with the skills that will attract future employers?

Nick Hurd: Yes, I do. Young people and employers are telling us that. They recognise that the NCS helps young people develop the character skills, leadership, communication, teamwork and self-confidence that will help them succeed in the workplace. That is why we are so proud to support it.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that the NCS ought to go hand in hand with paying attention to first-class citizenship in our schools? Is he aware that citizenship in schools has been run down to almost nothing?

Nick Hurd: That is under review by the Department for Education, but I stress that NCS and programmes like it complement what is going on in schools to build the confidence of young people and change how they feel about what they achieve. They are enormously valuable.

Jason McCartney: I was delighted to attend Royds Hall school last year to see dozens of youngsters who had been inspired to sign up for the National Citizen Service. Can the Minister assure me that this fantastic scheme will be rolled out not only across my constituency, but across the rest of the country this year?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of NCS in his area, and I am delighted that we will shortly announce plans to expand the service this year. It will expand considerably in his constituency and other areas, and I encourage colleagues to tell parents and young people about it, and to direct young people to the website, ncsyes.co.uk.

Topical Questions

Toby Perkins: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities as Minister for the Cabinet Office are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group for civil service issues; industrial relations strategy and the public sector; Government transparency; civil contingencies; civil society; and cyber-security.

Toby Perkins: The Government expect to increase debt by £212 billion more than they originally predicted, and our youth services are being cut to the bone. Study after study has shown, however, that the National Citizen Service, worthy as it is, has reached a tiny number of children. Is it not time that the Government either reformed the NCS to ensure that it provides better value for money or changed it altogether?

Francis Maude: It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to lecture this Government about debt and deficit, given the state of the public finances when his Government left office; there was reckless incontinence. The National Citizen Service, which we expect to expand, provides an incredibly valuable experience for growing numbers of young people, and I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it.

Mr Speaker: There is plenty of scope for an all-day debate, I think. I call Mr Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: To the coalition Government’s great credit, four months ago they started to tackle the scandal of civil servants being given paid time off to do trade union work. The TaxPayers Alliance has worked out that that costs £90 million a year. How many savings so far have the Government made on that £90 million?

Francis Maude: One of the difficulties is that under the previous Government no one even monitored how much time was spent on trade union activities and duties. There is a statutory requirement to provide paid time off for trade union duties, but that was roundly abused. We now have in place a proper system of control and monitoring, and the cost will be cut right back.

Cathy Jamieson: It is estimated that 71% of over-55s do not have access to the internet at home, so will the Minister explain exactly what support has been put in place to enable them to access Government services for which it is compulsory to apply online?

Francis Maude: The hon. Lady will know that we have in place an assisted digital strategy, so that as we roll out our digital by default approach, which will provide services on a much more convenient basis for the citizen at much lower cost to the taxpayer, there will always be available a place where people can go so that the digital transaction can be carried out with the support of someone to help the citizen. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the House listened to the questions and, indeed, to Ministers’ answers.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) about small and medium-sized enterprise procurement, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of giving contracts to small firms but that it is essential that the public sector pays its bills on time?

Chloe Smith: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: not only are hundreds of contract opportunities being made available for SMEs, but the Government are a fair payment champion, recognised by external bodies for their behaviour, just as he said.

Graeme Morrice: Research published by the Charities Aid Foundation found that one in six charities feared having to close this year, putting at risk the services on which many
	vulnerable people rely. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Government are taking to prevent charities from going to the wall?

Nick Hurd: The Government are doing a great deal to encourage giving in this country. The Treasury has introduced new tax incentives for giving, and is working hard to make gift aid work better for the charity sector. The small donation scheme is looking at how gift aid can work with digital giving, and we are looking at how we can make payroll giving work much more effectively. Across a range of areas, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are working hard to make sure that charities get the support that they need in these difficult times.

Andrew Bridgen: What monitoring arrangements for taxpayer-funded trade union representatives did my right hon. Friend discover after the general election, and what is his policy on this matter?

Francis Maude: Rather surprisingly, we found no arrangements whatever in place for monitoring the cost to the taxpayer of paid time off for trade union representatives. It had been allowed to spiral completely out of control under the previous Government and we are at long last bringing it under control.

Michael Connarty: The Cabinet Office seems to have left out its responsibility for the Office for National Statistics when it listed its responsibilities. When it is clear that the country is facing a major problem of addictive gambling, why have the Government not carried out the gambling prevalence survey provided for in the Gambling Act 2005, so we do not know how much addictive gambling there is in the country?

Francis Maude: As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, the Office for National Statistics is a non-ministerial Government department, which has statutory independence from Ministers.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Cabinet Office keeps a proper record of all the circumstances in which collective ministerial responsibility is set aside, so that we can have some transparency in relation to that process?

Francis Maude: I will ensure that the records are meticulously kept.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Christopher Chope: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Christopher Chope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I have given him notice of my question, which he may find particularly useful in the sense that it is fair and transparent and also very modern. In response to the many concerns expressed in yesterday’s debate, will he ensure that civil partnerships are open to heterosexual couples on an equal basis with homosexual couples?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question. I will obviously listen carefully to what he says, but frankly I am a marriage man. I am a great supporter of marriage. I want to promote marriage, defend marriage, encourage marriage, and the great thing about last night’s vote is that two gay people who love each other will now be able to get married. That is an important advance. We should be promoting marriage, rather than looking at any other way of weakening it.

Edward Miliband: I want to ask the Prime Minister about the bedroom tax. Alison in Middlesbrough has 18-year-old twin sons who are both in the Army. The Prime Minister’s bedroom tax means that while her sons are away, she will be charged more for their bedrooms. She says:
	“I resent the fact that both my sons are serving and protecting their country, and in return will not have a home to come home to when they are granted their much needed leave.”
	What is the Prime Minister’s answer to Alison?

David Cameron: First of all, let me make it clear that this is not a tax; it is a benefit. I would make two points in respect of the specific case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. First, all the time Labour was in government, if somebody was in a private sector rented home and were in receipt of housing benefit, they did not get any benefit for empty rooms. That is important. So it is only fair that we treat people in social housing the same way. The second point is that if anyone is away from home, obviously their earnings are not counted, so the benefits of that person are likely to go up.

Edward Miliband: I look forward to the Prime Minister explaining to Alison why her paying £25 a week more from April is not a tax on her. As for his point about the private rented sector, I think he misunderstands the point of social housing. Part of its purpose is to protect the most vulnerable. According to the Government’s own figures, two thirds of the people hit are disabled. Let me tell the Prime Minister about an e-mail that I received last week, which says:
	“My wife is disabled, has a degenerative condition and is cared for in bed.”
	The gentleman goes on:
	“Due to her illness and my own medical conditions I usually sleep in the spare bedroom.”
	Why is it fair for him and hundreds of thousands of other disabled people like him to be hit by the bedroom tax?

David Cameron: As with every hon. Member, if the right hon. Gentleman wants me or the Department for Work and Pensions to look at a specific case, of course I will, but let me again make some detailed points to him. First of all, there is a £50 million fund to deal with difficult cases. But let me also make the basic
	argument of fairness that he seems to miss. If someone is in private rented housing and receives no housing benefit, they do not get money for an extra room, and if someone is in private housing and do get housing benefit, they do not get money for an extra room, so there is a basic argument of fairness. Why should we be doing more for people in social housing on housing benefit than for people in private housing on housing benefit? There is one additional point that, frankly, he has got to engage in. The housing benefit bill is now £23 billion a year. We know that he is against capping welfare and we know that he is against restricting welfare to below the rate of increase in wages. We know all the things he is against; we are beginning to wonder what on earth he is for.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister is spending more than £8 billion more than he planned on housing benefit because of his economic failure during this Parliament. I say to him that the whole point of social housing is to protect families, including the disabled. It does not sound like he is going to do anything for military families or the disabled, but let us talk about a group of people he is moved by. I have here a letter sent on his behalf by the Conservative party treasurer about the so-called mansion tax. It says:
	“We promise that no homes tax will be introduced during the course of this parliament”.
	It goes on:
	“To keep the taxman out of your home…please help by donating today and supporting the ‘No Homes Tax’ campaign.”
	Can the Prime Minister explain what it is about the plight of those people that he finds so much more compelling than that of those hit by the bedroom tax?

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of a mansion tax, why did he not introduce one in the 13 years he was in government? If he is so passionate about social housing, why did he not build any when he was in government? If he thinks we are spending too much on housing benefit—he has just said that the bill is going up—why does he oppose each and every attempt we make to get the welfare bill under control? The fact is that the public can see that we are on the side of people who work hard and want to do the right thing; all he can ever do is spend more money.

Edward Miliband: I say to the Prime Minister that he should not get so het up. After all, he has got nearly half his parliamentary party behind him.
	The policy is not just unfair; it is not going to work either. In Hull, for example, 4,700 people are going to be hit by the bedroom tax, and there are just 73 council properties for them to move to. Can the Prime Minister explain how exactly that is going to work?

David Cameron: What this Government are doing is building more houses and controlling welfare bills. Frankly, the question is one that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer, too. If he opposes the welfare cap, if he opposes restrictions on increased welfare, if he opposes reform of disability benefits and if he opposes each and every welfare change we make, how on earth is he going to get control of public spending?

Edward Miliband: The clue is in the title: Prime Minister’s questions. He is supposed to try to answer the question.
	The Prime Minister clearly does not understand his own policy, but I thought that he might say, “Move to the private rented sector,” because there are not enough council properties for people. This is where—[Interruption.] When he gets up I would like him to say what those people should do. The policy is supposed to save money, and that is where it is not going to work out. Another woman who wrote to me, Diane, says that
	“my rent for my family home”—[Interruption.]
	I do not know why Government Members are groaning—thousands of their constituents are going to be hit by this policy. Diane says that
	“my rent for my family home is at present £65.68, whereas a one bedroom”
	in the private sector “would cost over £100.” How can it possibly make sense to force people into a situation where they cost the state more, not less, by moving into the private rented sector?

David Cameron: What this Government are doing is building more homes. If the right hon. Gentleman supports that, will he now support our changes to the planning system and the new homes bonus? Will he support the things that will get more homes built and more people into jobs? We have 1 million extra people working in the private sector—that is what he has to engage in. He has absolutely no suggestions for how to get on top of welfare, to get our deficit down, to get our economy moving or, frankly, to do anything else.

Edward Miliband: So today we discover that the Prime Minister has not even got a clue about his own policy, which he is introducing in April. His answers today remind us of what his party and the country are saying about him. The only people he listens to are a small group of rich and powerful people at the top. That is why he has come up with a policy that is unworkable and unfair. He is a Prime Minister who is weak, incompetent and totally out of touch.

David Cameron: That is the totally pathetic, pre-scripted rubbish that we get used to every Wednesday. On the issue of who listens to who, I have a very clear idea of who the right hon. Gentleman listens to, because we heard it in the LSE lecture by Len McCluskey, who said of the right hon. Gentleman:
	“I met him and he asked me—‘Len, if you had three wishes, three things that you’d like us to do if we got back into power, what would you like them to be’”?
	Len McCluskey’s answer was
	“trade union freedoms, trade union freedoms, trade union freedoms.”
	That is who the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the fairy godmother to.

James Arbuthnot: At the time of the strategic defence and security review two and a half years ago, my right hon. Friend said:
	“My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]
	Does that remain his view and has he heard any similar view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition?

David Cameron: It does remain my view, but I am afraid to say that, as far as I can see, I am the only party leader who believes that, in the years beyond this Parliament, we should increase defence spending in the way described by my right hon. Friend. The good news for all those who care about this issue is that it is agreed Government policy that the defence equipment programme needs real-terms increases up to after 2015. It is very important for us to be able to plan our exceptional equipment programme, which will give us some of the best-equipped armed forces anywhere in the world.

Geraint Davies: The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the bankers will pay £500 million less for the bankers tax than the Prime Minister promised last year, yet in April he will inflict a £500 million cut on the poorest through the second empty bedroom tax. How can he justify taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

David Cameron: I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is an important point—that we have introduced the bank levy. We think that that is a better answer than a one-off bonus tax. The bank levy will, of course, be paid every year, so it will raise considerably more than a one-off bonus tax. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done when the bank levy has not come up to the figures that we require is increase the bank levy to make sure that they do.

James Paice: I remind the House of my declared interests.
	Tomorrow the Prime Minister will go to Brussels to argue, rightly, for a substantial reduction in common agricultural policy funding. Will he ensure that any reduction applies to farmers right across Europe, not just those in the UK? Will he also make sure that he does not fall into the same trap as his predecessor did last time around in 2005? When pressing for cuts, his predecessor ended up with a cut to the one part of the CAP that everyone thinks is worth while—the rural development programme and the environment.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend speaks very knowledgeably about this matter. These will be extremely difficult negotiations. Obviously, our aim is the significant cut that I have spoken about. The point that he makes about agriculture is important, particularly in respect of the flexibility that we require to ensure that things such as the rural development programme continue to succeed.

Julie Hilling: We know that the Prime Minister has met lots of millionaires, but has he ever met anyone who will lose their home because of his bedroom tax?

David Cameron: I hold constituency surgeries and listen to all the sorts of cases that the Leader of the Opposition has brought out today. I have RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, and many forces families live there. What they say to me is that they want a Government who are on the side of people who work hard and do the right thing. They support the fact that we are capping welfare, getting on top of immigration and clearing up the mess left by the hon. Lady’s party.

Jane Ellison: Today is the United Nations international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain should be doing all it can to combat this dreadful abuse of the human rights of women and girls overseas and here in the UK?

David Cameron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to raise this matter. The Government have made progress by chairing a forum to look right across the piece, including at what we do overseas through our aid programme to prevent the horrific practice of female genital mutilation and at what we do here to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service and others are aware of the law and do everything they can to ensure that it is properly prosecuted.

Michael McCann: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Atos has declared that Richard III is fit for work?

David Cameron: That is not a constituency case that has come my way. All I can say is that I hope it will engender a great historical understanding of these events among all our people and provide a great boost to the great city of Leicester.

Ian Swales: This week’s announcement that the work of the Insolvency Service at Stockton is moving to Newcastle is the latest in a long series of similar announcements affecting the Tees valley, including the closure of Middlesbrough’s HMRC office by the previous Government. Will the Prime Minister look to bring extra work to the HMRC office in Stockton and to move another public sector agency to the Tees valley?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. We want to ensure that public sector jobs are fairly distributed around the country, but we have to be frank and say that the real need is for a rebalancing in the economy, with growth in the private sector to make up for the decline in public sector jobs. Over the past two and a half years, the million extra private sector jobs have more than offset the decline in public sector employment. That is why unemployment is falling around the country.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Prime Minister may not be aware of an opinion poll by the BBC in Northern Ireland showing that in all Six Counties there is now a clear majority in favour of the Union. People right across Northern Ireland recognise that when it comes to being part of this United Kingdom, we are better off together.

David Cameron: I sometimes try to avoid opinion polls, so I have not seen that one. It sounds as if it is one that will lift the spirits of almost everyone in this House, because we believe in a United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland being part of that United Kingdom.

Neil Parish: Can the Prime Minister reassure this House that he still believes in increasing spending on the NHS and in ensuring that those funds go to the doctors and nurses at the front line of our service?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we made a commitment to increase NHS spending in each year of this Parliament. We are on course to do that. Crucially, we want to ensure that the money goes to the front line. That is why the number of managers and administrators in our NHS is right down and the number of clinical staff right up.

Tom Blenkinsop: Was it the double-dip recession, the slow-down in deficit reduction or the projected 60% increase in national debt over the next five years that led the Prime Minister to state that he had full confidence in his Chancellor?

David Cameron: I have confidence in the Chancellor because the deficit is down by 25%, there are a million extra private sector jobs and we are cleaning up the mess made by the Labour party.

Charlie Elphicke: In Dover, plans are moving forward for the building of a new hospital, after a decade in which local hospital services were decimated. May I, too, say that we need to increase investment in the NHS and focus on the front line?

David Cameron: This day, particularly when we are about to discuss what happened at Stafford hospital, is a day to talk about the importance of care in our health service, the importance of the front line and, above all, the importance of really looking at quality and listening to patients. Under this Government, of course resources have been constrained, for all the reasons we discuss across the Dispatch Box, week in, week out, but we made a conscious choice to put more money into the NHS and get that to the front line. That is why there are 5,900 more doctors and 19,000 fewer non-clinical staff. The money is going to the front line, but the focus needs to be on quality and the patient.

Jim Shannon: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the Democratic Unionist party about suicide levels in our society? In the light of the debate later in this House, will he assure me and my party of the Government’s support to raise awareness of that issue and work with the devolved Administrations to tackle this scourge across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

David Cameron: First, I commend the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionists for tabling this motion and bringing forward the issue. We often do not talk enough or address the whole issue of suicide in our society and country, and it is absolutely right to do so. It is a shocking statistic that in Northern Ireland almost six times the number of people killed in road traffic accidents are lost to suicide. Raising awareness of the issue and ensuring a proper cross-Government strategy to help people deal with it is vital, and the DUP is right to raise it.

John Leech: As a result of the financial mess the Labour Government left the country in—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. We have a lot of questions to get through and I intend to get through them. Let us have a bit of order for Mr John Leech.

John Leech: Local councils have faced as tough a budget settlement as most other Departments. Does the Prime Minister share my dismay that Manchester city council is choosing to close libraries, leisure centres and the Mersey Valley Countryside Warden Service, while at the same time it was happy to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on an Alicia Keys concert and leave £100 million in reserves sitting in the bank?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course councils face difficult spending decisions, but in many cases the level of spending and grant they are still getting is equivalent to what they received under the last Government. Obviously, the economy has declined since then and we have to cut our cloth accordingly. Councils should be held accountable for the decisions that they make, and in some cases there can be little doubt that they are making high-profile cuts to try to make a point. They should not be damaging people’s livelihoods; they should be doing the best for their cities.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Prime Minister confirm for the record that thanks to his cuts to the child care element of the working tax credit, families with children are losing up to £1,500 a year?

David Cameron: What has happened with child tax credit is that we increased it by £390 in this Government’s early Budgets. If we look at the benefits for a two parent, two child family, we see that that family will be getting more than £1,500 extra this year—that is £30 a week—compared with 2010. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to the new President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, whose Government have made remarkable progress over the past few months? Although there is still a long way to go, does the Prime Minister agree that the Somali peace process is a good example of Britain combining aid and development with energising the neighbouring states and the diplomatic community worldwide, and will he tell the House what role he envisages for the Somali diaspora here in the UK?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and to anyone wondering about the relevance of Somalia to us here in the UK, we must remember that that country has been the author of huge problems with terrorism, piracy and mass migration. Even to the most hardened sceptic of our aid budget I would say that Somalia is a really good case where engagement, aid and diplomacy can help that country to mend itself for the future. I hope that the diaspora will give full support to the new President, who is demonstrating a huge grip in his country on mending the problems that have bedevilled it for so long.

Paul Flynn: The Prime Minister’s career probably peaked when he was a Back-Bench member of the Home Affairs Committee in 2005. Will he revive his progressive courage of that time when he
	looks at the report from the all-party parliamentary group on drug misuse on the awful problems of new drugs that are on the market but not controlled in any way?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s view of my career trajectory. I will not ask him about his—perhaps we can agree about it afterwards. I learned some important lessons from the Home Affairs Committee report I worked on, including on the priority we give in tackling drugs to education and treatment. Those are the two key arms of what needs to be done. However, I do not believe we should be legalising drugs that are currently illegal. On current legal highs and problems relating to substances such as khat, which was mentioned in a previous question, we need to look carefully at the evidence on what will work best.

Lorely Burt: In Solihull, more than 80,000 people have benefited from our policy of raising the threshold at which people start to pay tax. This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that that policy is right, and that those who have the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden of tax. In the light of that, will the Government commit to raising the threshold at which people pay tax to £10,000 in the Budget?

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Lady for her question—she is absolutely right about raising the threshold before which people start to pay tax. It means that the tax bill for someone on the minimum wage working full time has been cut by one half. That is a huge change to help people who work hard and want to do the right thing. This Government are rewarding them. She mentions the IFS green budget, which came out this morning. I have not had that much time to study it, but one thing stood out. On fairness, it states:
	“The whole set of tax and benefit changes introduced between the start of 2010 and 2015–16 will hit the richest households hardest.”
	This Government are fair, and we are helping the hardest working.

Gregg McClymont: The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a very simple question to which he gave no adequate reply, so I will ask it again. What is the difference between a bedroom tax on the disabled and a mansion tax on millionaires?

David Cameron: I do not accept that the bedroom tax is a tax—it is about benefit. The fact is that, as a country, we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. We must have a debate in this country about getting on top of housing benefit—the previous Government said that. Indeed, it featured in the Labour manifesto on which all Labour Members were elected. Since they have moved to the Opposition Benches, they have given up all pretence of responsibility.

Zac Goldsmith: Can the Prime Minister reconcile his recent comments on the need to accelerate major infrastructure projects with the Government’s decision to postpone forming a policy on airports until after the next general election? Will he reconsider and bring that review forward?

David Cameron: I listen very carefully to my hon. Friend, but Sir Howard Davies says in his review that this is a complicated issue that merits proper examination, which will take time. We need, as a country, to make major decisions on airports and airport capacity. We should aim as far as possible to try to make those decisions on a cross-party basis. I hope the Howard Davies report helps that to happen.

Diane Abbott: Last night’s vote on same-sex marriage is widely regarded as a historic vote. Does the Prime Minister agree that the vote is a tribute to the people down the decades who have worked—in all parties and no party, behind the scenes and in public—for such equality? Does he also agree that the vote proves that the arc of history bends slowly, but bends towards justice?

David Cameron: I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.

Andrew Percy: For years, young people in Goole and Brigg have had some of the lowest per pupil school funding in the country. This is now becoming critical for counties such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister look closely not just at the f40 authorities, but specifically at the low level of per pupil funding that the East Riding of Yorkshire receives?

David Cameron: I will look closely at what my hon. Friend has said, but I will make a couple of points. Within the education budget we have prioritised per pupil funding, so there has not been a reduction in per pupil funding. It is very important that schools can see forward to future years to the sorts of budgets that they will have, given the roll of children coming to their school. The second thing we have done, through the academy programme, is to encourage the devolution of more of the schools budget to schools directly, and I still think there is more we can achieve on that agenda.

Debbie Abrahams: The Prime Minister said that he would give the public a strong voice in the NHS, and his former Health Secretary said that he would put patients at the centre of the NHS. Why then was a motion to strengthen patient and public involvement in
	the new patient watchdog rejected by the Government in the other place last night?

David Cameron: We do want to see patients have a stronger voice in the NHS, and we are about to debate, at some length in terms of the Mid-Staffordshire inquiry, how that is done. One of the most important ways of doing that will be to make sure that the NHS Commissioning Board mandate has at its heart quality nursing, quality care and the voice of patients. We also need to look at how HealthWatch will work to ensure that it is truly independent. We have to understand that some of the ways we have tried to empower patients in the past—the report we are about to discuss goes into this in some detail—and give them a better voice, always with good intentions from Governments on both sides of the House, just have not worked, and we have to listen to Francis when he says that.

Brooks Newmark: With more women in work than ever before, with more men in work than ever before, and with more jobs created in the private sector, does the Prime Minister agree that not only is the Chancellor’s plan A working, but that the economy is beginning to turn the corner?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We should listen very carefully to the Governor of the Bank of England. He has said that growth is slower than we would like, but that the economy is moving in the right direction and that rebalancing is taking place. The things that need to be fixed in our economy, in terms of bank lending and the housing supply, are being fixed, and that is what the Government are determined to do.

Helen Goodman: One of my constituents has learned that when the bedroom tax is introduced she will have £24 a week to live on. She is so anxious about how she will manage she is receiving cognitive behavioural therapy. Her anxiety is totally understandable. Does the Prime Minister agree that those who should be receiving cognitive behavioural therapy are the ones—namely his Ministers—who think that she could live on £24 a week?

David Cameron: The Opposition have to address the fact that for 13 years in government they were perfectly content to have a housing benefit system for people in private sector housing that had no extra benefit for empty rooms. I cannot understand why they cannot see that it is unfair to have one rule for people who have the benefit of social housing with lower rents and another rule for people in private sector accommodation. Week after week, Labour MPs and the Labour leader come here opposing this benefit change, that benefit change and everything we do to deal with the mess they left to fill in the deficit they left us. Until they learn to take some responsibility for the mess they left, no one will ever listen to them.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)

David Cameron: Today, Robert Francis has published the report of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation Trust.
	Mr Speaker, I have a deep affection for our national health service. I will never forget all the things that doctors and nurses have done for my family in times of pain and difficulty. I love our NHS. I think it is a fantastic institution and a great organisation that says a huge amount about our country and who we are, and I always want to think the best about it. I have huge admiration for the doctors, nurses and other health workers who dedicate their lives to caring for our loved ones. Nevertheless, we do them and the whole reputation of our NHS a grave disservice if we fail to speak out when things go wrong.
	What happened at Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation Trust between 2005 and 2009 was not just wrong; it was truly dreadful. Hundreds of people suffered from the most appalling neglect and mistreatment. There were patients so desperate for water that they were drinking from dirty flower vases. Many were given the wrong medication, treated roughly or left to wet themselves and then lie in urine for days, and relatives were ignored or even reproached when they pointed out even the most basic things that could have saved their loved ones from horrific pain or even death. We can only begin to imagine the suffering endured by those whose trust in our health system was betrayed at their most vulnerable moment. That is why it is right to make this statement today.
	An investigation by the Healthcare Commission in 2009, a first independent inquiry by Robert Francis in February 2010 and, long before that, the testimony of bereaved relatives, such as Julie Bailey, and the Cure the NHS campaign all laid bare the most despicable catalogue of clinical and management failures at the trust. Even after those reports, however, important questions remained unanswered. How were these appalling events allowed to happen and to continue for so long? Why were so many bereaved families and whistleblowers who spoke out ignored for so long? Could something like this ever happen again? These are basic questions about wider failures in the system, not just at the hospital, but right across the NHS, including its regulators and the Department of Health.
	That is why the families called for this public inquiry and why the Government granted one. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks to Robert Francis and his entire team for their work over the past three years. The inquiry finds that the appalling suffering at the Mid Staffordshire hospital was primarily caused by a “serious failure” on the part of the trust board, which failed to listen to patients and staff and failed to tackle what Robert Francis calls
	“an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities.”
	The inquiry finds, however, that the failure went far wider. The primary care trust assumed others were taking responsibility and so made little attempt to
	collect proper information on the quality of care. The strategic health authority was
	“far too remote from the patients it was there to serve, and it failed to be sufficiently sensitive to signs that patients might be at risk.”
	Regulators, including Monitor and the then Healthcare Commission, failed to protect patients from substandard care. Too many doctors “kept their heads down” instead of speaking out when things were wrong. The Royal College of Nursing was
	“ineffective both as a professional representative organisation and as a trade union”
	and the Department of Health was too remote from the reality of the services that it oversees.
	The way Robert Francis chronicles the evidence of systemic failure means that we cannot say with confidence that failings of care are limited to one hospital, but let us also be clear about what the report does not say. Francis does not blame any specific policy, he does not blame the last Secretary of State for Health and he says that we should not seek scapegoats.
	Looking beyond the specific failures that Francis catalogues so clearly, we can identify in the report three fundamental problems with the culture of our NHS. The first is a focus on finance and figures at the expense of patient care—he says that explicitly—underpinned by a preoccupation with a narrow set of top-down targets pursued, in the case of Mid Staffordshire, to the exclusion of patient safety or listening to what patients, relatives, and indeed many staff members, were saying. Secondly, there was an attitude that patient care was always someone else’s problem. In short, no one was accountable. Thirdly, he talks about defensiveness and complacency. He finds that, instead of facing up to and acting on data that should have implied cause for concern, all too often there is a culture of only explaining the positives rather than any critical analysis. Put simply, managers were suppressing inconvenient facts in favour of looking for comfort in positive information. This is one of the most disturbing findings. It is bad enough that terrible things happened at that hospital, but what the inquiry is telling us is that there was a manifest failure to act on the data that were available, not just at the hospital but more widely. As Francis says:
	“In the end, the truth was uncovered…mainly because of the persistent complaints made by a…determined group of patients and those close to them.”
	The anger of the families is completely understandable. Every hon. Member in this House would be angry—they would be furious—if their mother, father or loved ones were treated in this way, and rightly so.
	The previous Government commissioned the first report from Robert Francis. When he saw that report, the former Secretary of State—now the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—was right to apologise for what went wrong. This public inquiry not only repeats earlier findings, but shows wider systemic failings, so I would like to go further as Prime Minister and apologise to the families of all those who have suffered for the way the system allowed this horrific abuse to go unchecked and unchallenged for so long. On behalf of the Government—and, indeed, our country—I am truly sorry.
	Since the problems at the Mid Staffordshire hospital first came to light, a number of important steps have been taken. The previous Government set up the National Quality Board and the quality accounts system. This
	Government have put compassion ahead of process-driven bureaucratic targets and put quality of care on a par with quality of treatment. We have set this out explicitly in the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, together with a new vision for compassionate nursing. We have introduced a tough new programme for tracking and eliminating falls, pressure sores and hospital infections, and we have demanded nursing rounds, every hour, in every ward of every hospital, but it is clear that we need to do more. We will study every one of the 290 recommendations in today’s report and we will respond in detail next month, but the recommendations include three core areas—patient care, accountability and defeating complacency—on which I believe we should make more immediate progress. Let me say a word about each.
	First, let me address how we put patient care ahead of finances. Today, when a hospital fails financially, its chair can be dismissed and the board can be suspended, but failures in care rarely carry such consequences. That is not right, so we will create a single failure regime, where the suspension of the board can be triggered by failures in care as well as failures in finance, and we will put the voice of patients and staff at the heart of the way in which hospitals go about their work. In Mid Staffordshire, as far back as 2006, there was a staff survey in which only around a quarter of staff said they would actually want one of their own relatives to use the hospital that they worked in. Over the following two years, bereaved relatives and campaigners produced case after dreadful case and campaign after chilling campaign, but these voices and these horrific cases were ignored. Indeed, the hospital was upgraded to foundation trust status during this period. We need the words of patients and front-line staff to ring through the boardrooms of our hospitals and, frankly, right beyond, to the regulators and the Department of Health itself.
	So from this year, every patient, every carer and every member of staff will be given the opportunity to say whether they would recommend treatment in their hospital to their friends or family. This will be published and the board will be held to account for its response. Put simply, where a significant proportion of patients or staff raise serious concerns about what is happening in a hospital, immediate inspection will result and suspension of the hospital board may well follow. Quality of care means not accepting that bed sores and hospital infections are somehow occupational hazards—that a little bit of these things is somehow okay. It is not okay; they are unacceptable—full stop, end of story. That is what zero harm—the jargon for this—means. I have therefore asked Don Berwick, who has advised President Obama on this issue, to make zero harm a reality in our NHS.
	Francis makes other recommendations. Today it is possible to give hands-on care in a hospital with no training at all. Francis says this is wrong and I agree. There are some simple but quite profound things that need to happen in our NHS and in our hospitals. Nurses should be hired and promoted on the basis of having compassion as a vocation, not just academic qualifications. We need a style of leadership from senior nurses that means that poor practice is not tolerated and is driven off the wards. Another issue is whether pay should be linked to quality of care rather than just to time served at a hospital. I favour this approach.
	Secondly, on accountability and transparency, the first Francis report set out very clearly what happened within Stafford hospital, and it should have led to those responsible being brought to book by the board, by the regulators, by the professional bodies and by the courts. But that did not happen. Most people will want to know why on earth not. We expect hospitals to take disciplinary action against staff who abuse their patients. We expect the professional bodies—the professional regulators—to strike off doctors and nurses who seriously breach their professional codes. And, yes, we expect the justice system to prosecute those suspected of criminal acts, whether they take place in a hospital or anywhere else. But in Stafford those expectations were badly let down. The system failed, and that is one of the main reasons we badly needed this public inquiry.
	Now that the recommendations about systemic failure are public, the regulatory bodies in particular are going to have some difficult questions to answer. The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council need to explain why, so far, no one has been struck off. The Secretary of State for Health has today invited them to explain what steps they will take to strengthen their systems of accountability in the light of this report, and we are going to ask the Law Commission to advise on sweeping away the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s outdated and inflexible decision-making processes.
	The Health and Safety Executive also needs to explain its decisions not to prosecute in specific cases. Indeed, Robert Francis makes a strong argument that the Health and Safety Executive is too distant from hospitals and not the right organisation to be focusing on health care and criminal prosecutions in such cases. So we will look closely at his recommendation to transfer the right to conduct criminal prosecutions away from the HSE to the Care Quality Commission.
	Thirdly, we must purge the culture of complacency that is undermining the quality of care in our country. This requires a clear view about what is acceptable and what is not. In our schools, we have a clear system of deciding whether a school has the right culture and whether it is succeeding or failing. It is a system based on the judgment of independent experts who walk the corridors of the school and analyse more than just the statistics. The public therefore know which schools near them are outstanding and which are failing. They have a right to know exactly the same about our hospitals.
	We need a hospital inspections regime that does not just look at numerical targets but examines the quality of care and makes an open, public and explicit judgment. So I have asked the Care Quality Commission to create a new post, a chief inspector of hospitals to take personal responsibility for that task. I want the new inspections regime to start this autumn, and we will look at the law to ensure that the inspector’s judgment is about whether a hospital is clean, safe and caring, rather than just an exercise in bureaucratic box-ticking. In the meantime, I have asked the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, to conduct an immediate investigation into the care at hospitals with the highest mortality rates and to check that urgent remedial action is being taken.
	Complacency in the system has meant that, all too often, patient complaints have been ignored. So I am today asking the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the chief executive of South Tees
	Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Tricia Hart, specifically to advise on how NHS hospitals can handle complaints better in the future.
	I have talked today about some of the systemic failures, but at the heart of any system are the people who work in it and the values they hold. It is worth quoting in full what Francis says, early in his report:
	“Healthcare is not an activity short of systems intended to maintain and improve standards, regulate the conduct of staff, and report and scrutinise performance. Continuous efforts have been made to refine and improve the way these work. Yet none of them, from local groups to the national regulators, from local councillors to the Secretary of State, appreciated the scale of the deficiencies at Stafford and, therefore, over a period of years did anything effective to stop them.”
	What makes our national health service special is the simple principle that the moment you are injured or fall ill, or the moment something happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are, wherever you are from, whatever is wrong, and however much you have got in the bank, there is a place you can go where people will look after you and do everything they can to make things right again. The shocking truth is that that precious principle of British life was broken in Mid Staffordshire.
	We would not be here today without the tireless campaigning of the families who suffered so terribly, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their incredible courage and determination over those long and painful years. When I met Julie Bailey and the families again on Monday, she said to me that she wanted the legacy of their loved ones to be an NHS safe for everyone. That is the legacy that together we must secure, and I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tone in which he made it. The NHS represents the best values of this country, and what happened at Stafford was an appalling betrayal of those values. We all think that when our own loved ones—our mother or father, grandmother or grandfather—go into hospital, we are placing them in the trust of the NHS and we expect hospitals to be places of utmost compassion and the highest standards of care. At Stafford, patients became victims and their relatives who pleaded for assistance were ignored or even made to feel intimidated.
	Let me join the Prime in paying tribute to all those former patients, relatives and staff who came forward to speak out, including those who gave evidence to this and to previous inquiries. Let me also thank Robert Francis for his work on this and on the previous inquiry.
	Let me also say, as was reflected in the Prime Minister’s remarks, that what happened at Stafford was not typical of the NHS. Day in, day out, the vast majority of those who go to work in our NHS deliver great care to patients up and down the country. They are as horrified as all of us by what happened in Stafford.
	The previous Government were right to apologise on behalf of the Government and the NHS to the patients and families that suffered so badly at Stafford hospital. I reaffirm that today. We on the Labour side are truly
	sorry for what happened. What happened has no place in any NHS hospital. We must ensure that it does not and cannot happen again.
	As the Prime Minister makes clear, today’s report says that the primary responsibility for what happened lay with the board of the hospital, but there are wider lessons that politicians on all sides must learn, including a lesson for all parties about the dangers of frequent reorganisations of the NHS, which Francis mentions.
	The Prime Minister says it will take some time to digest the report in full, so let me ask some specific questions. First, on the patient voice, effective regulation is essential, but the reality is that regulators cannot be everywhere spotting every problem. Patients, their families and staff are everywhere in our NHS, so we must ensure that they are properly heard.
	The challenge is to change the culture of the NHS and to support rather than shut out people who complain. The NHS constitution offers protections for whistleblowers, and we support moves to strengthen that. The Francis report, however, also highlights criticisms and concerns about both previous and current arrangements for patient bodies. Does the Prime Minister agree—from something he said earlier, I think he does—that whatever bodies we choose to represent patients, they need to be independent and have the powers to be an effective voice and challenge to the system.
	Secondly, on staffing, the basic requirements of any NHS hospital are that there are sufficient staff to look after patients and that they act with compassion. In too many cases at Stafford, that just did not happen. Compassion should always be at the heart of nursing, and it needs to be at the heart of nurse training, so we support the moves that the Prime Minister announced.
	As Robert Francis has said previously—I quote from the first report—in explaining what went wrong:
	“the overwhelmingly prevalent factors were a lack of staff, both in terms of absolute numbers and appropriate skills”.
	Does the Prime Minister accept the report’s point that we need to consider benchmarks on staff numbers and skills throughout our NHS?
	Thirdly, on regulation, the problems at Stafford should have been picked up much earlier. Monitor and the Healthcare Commission should have worked together much more closely. We will look at the Prime Minister’s proposals around the chief inspector of nursing care, but does he support the move to a single regulator, which is in the Francis report? On health care assistants—the Prime Minister mentioned them—who do such important work in our hospital wards and communities, does he agree that we need training and registration for them to improve standards and safety?
	Fourthly, on foundation trust status, the enthusiasm for foundation trusts has been shared on both sides of this House, and the journey to foundation trust status has clearly been a beneficial process for many trusts. In the case of Stafford, however, it clearly was not. For the future, has the Prime Minister made any reassessment of the current timetable for other trusts to achieve foundation status and of whether more flexibility is needed?
	Fifthly, on waiting time targets, today’s report clearly states that
	“it is not suggested that properly designed targets, appropriately monitored, cannot provide considerable benefit to patients”.
	In other words, targets have their place, but they must be kept in their place. Does the Prime Minister accept that, as the Francis analysis suggests, the problem at Stafford was how the A and E target was managed by that hospital, and that many hospitals up and down the country have delivered excellent care while meeting the A and E target? Neither he nor I want to go back to the days when people were left waiting 12 hours on trolleys and 18 months for an operation.
	Finally, let me turn to the issue of integration. I believe that there is a bigger overarching issue here, which applies not just in Stafford, but elsewhere in our NHS. It is something that my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary has talked about recently. The ageing society is bringing a whole new set of demands on the NHS. A group of elderly and infirm patients require not just physical treatment for their immediate illness, but need much greater care and attention for their basic needs. As the Francis report says, we must address this new challenge that the NHS faces to make sure we avoid a repeat of what happened at Stafford.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that in every hospital we need to put in place the right support for the whole of a person’s needs, including those of the elderly population? Does he further agree that that means breaking down the barriers that still exist in much of the country between health care provided by the NHS and social care provided by local authorities?
	We cannot turn the clock back and undo the damage that happened at Stafford, but we owe it to those who suffered, to the people of Stafford and to the country as a whole to work together to act on this report and to prevent a scandal like this from happening elsewhere. We in the Opposition will play our part in making that happen.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone in which he made them. I apologise for not getting my response to the report to him a little earlier this morning. That was a technical mistake rather than anything more sinister. The right hon. Gentleman is right to thank the relatives and to thank Robert Francis for his work. Let me try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.
	On the issue of reorganisations, Francis says:
	“The extent of the failure of the system shown in this report suggests that a fundamental culture change is needed. This does not require root and branch reorganisation—the system has had many of those—but it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms.”
	I hope we can agree that the best thing to do now is to learn the lessons and put in place what needs to be done.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of listening to patients. As he said, we have got to make sure that whatever organisation we have—we have established HealthWatch—is independent, credible and has power. It is interesting to note what Francis finds on page 46:
	“It is now quite clear that what replaced”
	community health councils, and there were
	“two attempts at reorganisation in 10 years, failed to produce an improved voice for patients and the public, but achieved the opposite.”
	We need to learn the lessons and try to make sure that HealthWatch becomes everything we all want it to be.
	As for supporting complaints, what Francis and the right hon. Gentleman said is that when there are complaints, they have got to be given a bigger voice and be taken seriously. Here, Members of Parliament have a role to play. Somewhere, buried in the report, there is a passage that is mildly critical of MPs. Like others in the community, we love our local hospitals and we always want to stand up for them, but we have to be careful to look at the results in our local hospitals and work out whether we should not sometimes give voice to some of the concerns rather than go along with a culture that says everything is all right all of the time—sometimes it is not.
	On the issue of staff numbers and benchmarks, we think it important that there should be some benchmarks. We believe that because of the funding commitment we have made, there is no excuse for understaffing or for staff shortages, but that obviously requires good management.
	On having a single regulator, the right hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about Monitor and the Care Quality Commission and whether there was confusion between them. When he talks of strengthening the CQC and giving it greater powers, that is in principle, as I said in my statement, the right direction to go in.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about trusts, and both sides of the House have supported the idea of foundation trusts, making sure hospitals are more accountable, more responsible and able to take more decisions. The problem is not with creating foundation trusts, but arises if the move to create them means that other things that matter more than trust status—such as patient care—are pushed to one side. We must all learn the lesson and ensure that for the next round of trust creation, they must not be rushed and they must happen only when they are ready and on the basis that patient care comes first.
	The point about targets is important. I believe that there is a place for targets in our NHS, but I think that under the last Government they became too tight and too obsessive. I also think that the last Government recognised that themselves, and started to change the approach.
	The public have a right to know that waiting times in A and E will not be too long and that treatments will be carried out quickly, so there is an importance in targets. I think that what Francis is saying is that it was not the targets that were to blame, but a culture in the hospital—and perhaps in other hospitals, although he does not inquire into that—in which targets and their achievement were placed ahead of patient care. Again, the two should not be alternatives.
	What the right hon. Gentleman said about the ageing population and the challenge facing our NHS was absolutely right. A key part of our dementia challenge is raising the standard of, in particular, the way in which we treat elderly people in our hospitals. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to break down the barrier between health and social care.
	I hope that the report will provide not an opportunity to try to find scapegoats or to fire up some phony political debate, but a moment when everyone in the
	House can agree. We all love our national health service, and this afternoon’s discussion shows that we have the same ideas about patient care, about quality, about bringing health and social care together, and about ensuring that a good, rational system has patients at its heart. I hope that this can be a moment when the country comes together over our NHS, rather than seeking divisions.

Jeremy Lefroy: Today is a day on which, first of all, we think of those who suffered in Stafford and of their loved ones. I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the tone that they have adopted. I also pay tribute to Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, to Robert Francis, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister for the way in which they have championed the cause of this inquiry.
	I know how passionate the Prime Minister is about the NHS and the work that goes on day in, day out, and I share that passion. Does he agree that the most important thing that we can do for the patients and their loved ones who have suffered is implement the recommendations that we are able to implement as quickly as possible, so that they can result in an NHS that is safe for all and is known for the highest standards of compassion and care?

David Cameron: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has spoken up about this issue for many years, spoke for everyone in Stafford and throughout the country when he said that we should put the victims upfront and centre. They are the people we should be holding in our thoughts today because of how they have suffered.
	I agree with what my hon. Friend said about implementing the recommendations. There are 290 of them, so we must examine them carefully and see how we can best implement them, and the Department of Health will lead that work. Let me make two additional points. First, the recommendations are not simply for the Government or the Department; they are for every hospital, every nurse and every doctor to consider. I think it very important for that to happen. Secondly, as I tried to make clear in my statement, for all the changes in the system and all the corrections of regulatory failure that may be made, a system is only as good as the people who work in it. I think that at the heart of what Francis is saying is a cry from the heart that this is about quality, vocation and compassion, and that those are the values that we need to put back at the heart of the NHS.

Joan Walley: I welcome the fact that there has been a public inquiry, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement.
	What has happened in Mid Staffordshire affects the whole of Staffordshire. In view of the emphasis that is now to be placed on compassion as well as on targets, and in view of what the Prime Minister has said about the role of social care, may I ask whether he will arrange for local Members of Parliament to have some form of oversight in Staffordshire so that the collaboration that will be needed to introduce this
	culture change can be put into practice on the ground, particularly in the light of closures that involve social care homes as well?

David Cameron: I think it very important for the voice of local Members of Parliament to be listened to. The Secretary of State has said that he will ensure that Staffordshire Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament representing Stoke-on-Trent, can advise him on the issue. Let me refer again, however, to one of the things that may need to change in our political debate. If we are really going to put quality and patient care upfront, we must sometimes look at the facts concerning the level of service in some hospitals and some care homes, and not always—as we have all done, me included—reach for the button that says “Oppose the local change”. I know that that is what the hon. Lady was saying, but I think that this is a moment when we may be able to ensure that our political culture is more in line with what is required in our health culture.

Aidan Burley: Many of my constituents died unnecessarily at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2009. Given Monitor’s continuing review of the future of Mid Staffordshire’s foundation trust, I remain astonished that it was given foundation trust status in 2009, when all these problems were going on.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest lesson that can be learned is that when front-line professionals who love and care about the NHS are genuinely concerned about standards of care, we should have a system that allows them to speak out without fear of exposure or victimisation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for the victims from Cannock and their families, whom he represents properly in the House. He is right to say that we must listen to the voices of victims and patients, and he is also right to talk about the reform of regulatory bodies, although, as I said earlier, we should be careful about thinking that just reforming regulatory bodies will be enough.
	My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the importance of whistleblowers. It should not be necessary to rely on whistleblowing to deal with problems of quality, but sometimes it will be. We have taken measures to fund a helpline to support them, to embed rights in their employment contracts, and to issue new guidance in partnership with trade unions and employers. So we are taking the issue of whistleblowers seriously.

Frank Dobson: As Health Secretary, I changed the law to provide protection for whistleblowing and to make hospital boards responsible for the quality of care. I am sure the Prime Minister accepts my disappointment that those changes were clearly not sufficient to avoid the things that happened in Mid Staffordshire.
	May I issue a warning? I greatly welcome the proposal to make openness, transparency and candour a legal requirement, but if we are to do that in a litigation-obsessed society, it will need to be matched by the introduction of a system of no-fault compensation. Otherwise, it is possible that in some hospitals the doctors will be outnumbered by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

David Cameron: I will consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said about no-fault compensation. The cost of litigation in the NHS is clearly a rapidly rising part of the budget, and that is of concern.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the laws that he changed is important. What I think we have observed in Governments of all parties is the belief that changing the law to make it clear that quality is important as well as cost, and that patient care matters, does not necessarily lead to a change in the culture.
	That returns me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). The report makes it clear that when the issue of foundation trust status arose, those who were judging it did so on the basis of a whole series of metrics that were mainly financial, and on the basis of targets, rather than looking behind those for the quality. It is a culture change that will ensure that, when a hospital board meets, the first things that it considers are clinical standards, quality and patient care. That is the first stuff: that is actually what the organisation is meant to deliver. The board can think about the finances, the targets and all the rest of it afterwards. It is that culture change that needs to take place.

William Cash: On behalf of my constituents and the victims and relatives who have been so grievously traumatised by these tragic events and the lack of patient care, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on realistically listening, as Leader of the Opposition, to my repeated calls in Parliament for a real public inquiry, which he established under the Inquiries Act 2005, I also congratulate him on his statement, and on his praise for the inquiry itself and for Cure the NHS—in particular, Julie Bailey, my constituents Debra Hazeldine and Ken Lownds, and all the others who have campaigned so effectively and with such passion for patient care.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He did call repeatedly for a public inquiry, and he was right to make such a call. That is reflected in the report, and he can read it today. What was required was not an investigation of the failure in the hospital, but an investigation of the wider systemic failure. For instance, why was this not brought to light more quickly? What was the role of the regulator? What was the role of the Nursing and Midwifery Council? All that is laid out in the report.
	However, I think that there was another very profound reason for holding a public inquiry, although I know that it will not satisfy some of the victims. They feel incredibly strongly, and rightly strongly. These terrible things happened to their loved ones, but where is the criminal prosecution? Where are the people who have been struck off? There has not been proper accountability, and there is not proper accountability in our system. A public inquiry can look to the future and say, “Here’s what needs to change,” so if this ever happens again—I hope to God it does not—there will be much better accountability than the people of Stafford have had.

Paul Farrelly: The tragic events at Stafford are having a continuing impact on both management and care at the University hospital of North Staffordshire. A and E closures at Stafford have
	caused major strains, for example, and our new hospital was already struggling as a result of bed closures ordered a few years ago by Sir David Nicholson’s travelling troubleshooter, Antony Sumara. For reasons of patient safety, our hospital’s chief executive last year rightly reopened many of those beds to cope with the added A and E pressures. That has only added to the financial pressures, however. When rather distant bureaucrats at the Department of Health and the regional health authority play their part in responding to those pressures, will the Prime Minister ensure that they do so with sympathy and local understanding and put patient safety and care at the heart of the response?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when those above and beyond a hospital are making decisions on questions such as whether the hospital should become a foundation trust, they must look very closely at quality of patient care, not simply financial and other metrics. That is at the heart of what Francis is saying. The CQC believes that the hospital is currently providing an adequate standard of care. Only last week it carried out an unannounced inspection and it was content with what it found. Recent reports have been disturbing, however, and there is important work still to do in this hospital as in others, because “adequate” is never good enough; they have to strive to be better, and I know that that is what is going on.

Nicholas Soames: Whatever the abject clinical and management failings, this was at heart a truly disgraceful failure of leadership at all levels. Indeed, too many inadequate and failing managers in leadership positions are repeatedly recycled through the NHS. Accordingly, will the Prime Minister consider establishing a national health service staff college to which senior managers may go, and ensure that no senior manager may take command of a hospital trust or any higher post unless he is a graduate of such a college?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. When he has a chance to look at the report in more detail, I think he will be pleased to see that Robert Francis suggests something along those lines: he suggests some form of leadership college. We think that has merit and will look at it carefully. I am nervous about committing instantly to creating more NHS organisations and institutions as there are a lot already, but the point he makes is a good one.
	The other point my right hon. Friend makes is vitally important in terms of the accountability issue: all too often when something has gone wrong in one of our hospitals, managers or overseers are recycled and reappear, as if by magic, in another part of the NHS. We need all those responsible for accountability—the CQC, Monitor, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Medical Council—to take a clearer view about whether someone is up to the job or not.

Alan Johnson: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the manner in which he made it. Does he agree that our biggest challenge is to make quality of care the central organising principle of the NHS? That was recognised by Lord Ara Darzi, although I am not sure whether we were particularly successful at pursuing it. We can all
	say that that is the challenge, but addressing it creates a series of problems, including—as I was saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson)—the problem of productivity. If nurses and GPs and other doctors are to spend more time with patients and focus on care, there will be ramifications for other ways in which we measure how the health service is working. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that the challenge that Ara Darzi sets is about how to make care truly the central organising principle of the NHS?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of, and affection for, the NHS, and I, too, am a fan of Ara Darzi and think he has a huge amount to offer. He had a big hand in giving priority to quality at the end of the last Government’s term. Francis is saying that there needs to be a culture change in respect of quality, but we must also look at what we are currently measuring. If hospital managers are measured on financial metrics and target metrics, rather than on quality of care—that is what we see flowing through the report—all the words we say and laws we pass on quality of care will not have sufficient impact. We need to look at that.

Simon Hughes: I welcome the report and the Prime Minister’s response, including on the hospital inspectorate proposal. Will he ensure that the Government’s full response includes giving special consideration to trying to change the culture of calling for the lawyers, which is what often currently happens when there are complaints? Instead, everybody should know in advance who is responsible for the ward, who is responsible for the clinical care and who is responsible for the management, and that they will be held to account. We must also ensure that the best practice in clinical care—which we often see in our wards—is used to judge what works and we are very tough on those who have failed.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes two points. First, I agree that we need clear lines of accountability so we can see who is responsible for standards of care on the ward and in the hospital, and they must be held to account for that. Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with the point that sometimes people making a compliant are not seeking financial redress, and I think all constituency MPs would agree with that, too. They just want to be taken seriously. They want to be listened to; they want an acknowledgement. They will not go off and hire lawyers. They want an acknowledgement that their elderly relative was not treated properly, and they want it soon. I hope this report launches a debate in the NHS about how we can deliver that.

Tristram Hunt: There remains real trauma and anguish in Stoke-on-Trent about the abuse, poor treatment and unnecessary deaths of relatives and friends in Stafford hospital. I welcome the focus on delivering a culture of care in the management of hospitals and on the accountability of boards, and I also welcome the questioning of nursing and medical bodies about the absence of accountability. I have two questions, however. What elements of the new NHS reforms make it less likely that a Mid Staffs will occur
	again, and are we absolutely sure that HealthWatch will be fit for purpose in April? On the north Staffordshire health care economy, the University hospital of North Staffordshire is taking a lot of slack from Mid Staffordshire. Can we ensure that the Department of Health supports North Staffordshire in addressing any problems?

David Cameron: Let me go directly to the important question about the reforms, the status quo once they are in place and how that will help deliver what Francis talks about. As I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, Francis says he is content this can be delivered:
	“it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms.”
	I hope the reforms will help in a number of ways. I hope HealthWatch can be created as a robust independent organisation that is taken seriously by those in the health service and more widely. I hope that having clinical leadership of the clinical commissioning groups, with local GPs and others in charge, will mean they will reach further into their hospital and perhaps ask better questions than the primary care trust put. As I said at Prime Minister’s questions, I also hope that the Department of Health sets a mandate for the national Commissioning Board and that we put quality and care for patients at the heart of it. While I accept that we need some process targets because things such as waits in A and E matter, I hope that the move towards judging outcomes rather than processes will reinforce the importance of quality, because if we do not get quality care, we will not get quality outcomes.

Andrew Griffiths: The Prime Minister will be aware that since the closure of the A and E at Stafford, Queen’s hospital in Burton has been dealing with some of the patients that would have gone to Mid Staffs. Will he join me in thanking all the staff at Queen’s and the other hospitals across Staffordshire who have worked so hard to try to deal with the consequences of the Mid Staffs fallout? Given that he understands the genuine concern that is felt in my constituency and across Staffordshire about health care, will he assure my constituents that never again will ticking boxes be put ahead of caring and compassion in the NHS?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that guarantee. The whole tenor of this report is that quality patient care must come before anything else, including targets, no matter how important they can sometimes be. I join him in praising those in his own local hospital who have been working hard and delivering accident and emergency services. If anyone wants to understand just how badly the target chasing and obsession got at Stafford hospital, they can see on page 108 in volume I some chilling evidence that staff just felt they could not complain about quality because they were being chased so hard on the targets that everything else was put to one side.

Robert Flello: The Prime Minister has said that the concerns of patients’ families were ignored, but in fact they and representatives were lied to. One consequence of what happened at Mid Staffordshire is that, despite nobody suggesting that there is a widespread problem throughout the NHS,
	people have a real fear: whenever there is a case of poor care in one of our hospitals, people immediately jump to conclusions and ask, “Is this a wider problem?” I look forward to hearing the Prime Minister’s comments in a moment, but I hope that this report will go some way to alleviating people’s very real fear that when they see one of their loved ones treated in a way that falls way below or slightly below the standard they were expecting, they can have the confidence to know that it is not Mid Staffs all over again.

David Cameron: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure he is right; I do not think we are looking at other problems across our NHS of a Stafford-style scale, where this went on for year after year and potentially hundreds of people lost their lives prematurely. However, we do know that there are problems in parts of our NHS and problems in individual hospitals. One of the things we have to learn from this report is that when that happens we must not say that everything is fine and we must not have a culture of complacency. Instead, let us have a proper way of dealing with the problems. That is the big change that needs to come out of this.

Gavin Williamson: Many of my constituents both use and depend on Stafford hospital. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that future nurse training will all be focused on care and compassion, and not on an obsession with targets?

David Cameron: The Care Quality Commission has said that Stafford hospital is providing adequate care. There was a recent inspection to check up on it, and obviously more work needs to be done as it recovers from this. We need to be absolutely clear that nurses not only provide amazing care, but are also well trained and can carry out some quite complicated medical procedures, and they are proud of that. They are often—dare I say—better sometimes than the junior doctor at putting in the cannula or whatever. We should praise that and we should want to have professional nurses. The key thing that needs to change as we employ and train nurses is that we make sure that at the heart of their reason for wanting to do the job is not just access to the qualifications and the career, but a real belief in compassion and caring, and that it is a vocation.

Ann Clwyd: Apart from addressing the training of nurses, we need nurses who do not mind wiping people’s bottoms or holding the sick bowl under somebody’s face, but there are not enough of those any more. I am glad that the Prime Minister talked about compassion and care. I have received more than 1,000 letters and e-mails since I first spoke out from people who echo some of the points he has made today and which we all know about as constituency MPs. There must be an opportunity for whistleblowers to act without fear of reprisal. There must be freedom for people to make complaints, to speak out and to say when they see that something is going wrong. I only wish that I had spoken out and shouted, instead of thinking that I was leaving somebody in the hands of professionals, which, I am afraid, did not extend to the care and compassion we would all expect somebody to be treated with in hospital.
	I just wish to pay a quick tribute to the campaigners, as the Prime Minister has done. I pay particular tribute to Julie Bailey, whom I have also met. I have met dozens of those people, and I think we would all applaud their tenacity in speaking out and sticking to their guns. I look forward to helping to make the system better because, as the Prime Minister has said, we all love the NHS, but we know that there are systemic faults in it at the moment.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Lady for what she says, and I am delighted that she is going to be helping us with this piece of work to really set out how complaints should be properly handled. I think she speaks for everyone when she says not only that she loves the NHS, but that when we see the best level of care handed out to loved ones, it is one of the most inspiring things in the world, and that is why it is so disturbing and so hurtful when we see poor standards of care and people let down. We have to get a balance right in this debate: we must continually and rightly praise nurses, health care assistants and doctors for the care and compassion they provide—for what they do every day—but we must marry that with a determination that where there is bad practice we should join them in pointing it out. There has been a culture of complacency that we have all been part of—MPs are to blame here, too—for too long.

Christopher Pincher: I note that the Prime Minister shares the shock and incredulity of the people of Staffordshire, the county where I was born and which I represent, that such terrible things can happen in one of their local hospitals. I am pleased that he says he will make it easier for whistleblowers and for patients to put on record their experience of care. Will he say a little more about the speed with which he expects those data to be put in the public domain, so that patients, the public and hospital managers can make quick and informed decisions about what is going on in their hospitals?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Like others, like others, Staffordshire MPs have spoken with great passion about their care for their local health service and what it can provide.
	On the timing, Robert Francis says that he wants all parts of the NHS to respond to him on what they are going to do right across the NHS, and that should be done over the next year. The Department of Health will be looking in the coming months at all the recommendations and responding. Specifically on the inspections, which are so important, as I said in my statement we are going to look at these changes to the CQC, but even before that Bruce Keogh is going to run this set of inspections into hospitals that have high rates of mortality and make sure that they are being dealt with properly.

Kevin Barron: It is quite clear that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was supposed to encourage and protect whistleblowing, has failed in this case when faced with the culture of the NHS. On the lessons that could be learned, the Health Committee published a report in 2009 on patient safety and recommended that the Government should look at how whistleblowing was handled around the world, particularly in New Zealand. There, it is handled by an
	independent person, who carries out the inquiry, often anonymously from the complainant, and gets a far better reaction from institutions that we do here in the United Kingdom.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about whistleblowers and how we handle them, and I am sure that Health Ministers will listen to that. I just make the point that supporting whistleblowers is one thing, but we also have to respond to what is being said. There were whistleblowers in the case of the Stafford hospital, but the problem was that the response to the complaints, the campaigns and the whistleblowing was completely inadequate.

Phillip Lee: I do not necessarily share the enthusiasm of others for hospitals to gain foundation trust status, particularly those serving less than half a million people. I note with interest that the chief executive of Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who oversaw the foundation trust status being secured a few years ago, has now retired with a healthy pension and so on. That trust is now £80 million in debt and unsustainable. I also note with interest that the chief executive in this case cited the old chestnut of stress-related illness in order to avoid contributing to the report. When are we going to draw up contracts so that people get sacked for poor performance, be it financial or clinical? As far as I am concerned, the same should apply to hospital managers as applied to bankers.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of the NHS, and he is absolutely right to say that it is depressing to look down the list of those responsible for the Stafford hospital at the time and see what has happened. It reads “Left on compromise agreement”, “Left on compromise agreement”, “Stepped down” and “Now working somewhere else”. As I said, the accountability mechanisms in the NHS are not good enough, which is why this report is so important. I now want to see is all the organisations—the trusts, the CQC, the Department of Health, the General Medical Council and so on—answering the question: why is bad practice not punished properly? That is one of the key things that has to come out of this report. That is not everything that those campaigners from Stafford want to hear; they want more accountability from the people involved in this problem. I can understand absolutely why they want that, but I think that what we can get out of the Francis report is a sense that there are going to be proper rules to deal with failure in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. These are extremely serious matters being treated with great knowledge and sensitivity. I want to accommodate everybody who is interested in the subject, but we would now benefit from slightly shorter questions and I need therefore look no further than to a specialist in the genre, Gisela Stuart.

Gisela Stuart: Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, what precise steps will he take to force trusts not to accept early resignations or moving on? What will he do to stop that recycling, which has been going on for ever?

David Cameron: There are two answers. The first relates to the contracts that are signed in the first place; every trust board needs to read the report and think about how it will put in place those contracts. The second is to make sure that when there are failures, proper action is taken. That is what needs to happen.

David Tredinnick: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the chief inspector of hospitals has access to all the information that he or she needs from the General Medical Council and all the other bodies? Does he agree that wards for the elderly in particular need regular inspections by nurses?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My view—we can debate this over the coming weeks—is that quite a lot of transparent information is available in the NHS, but it is not properly acted on. What we need from the chief inspector of hospitals is a sense that, as in schools, you consider the data, walk the wards, look at the quality of care with a professional team and then reach a judgment. People do not necessarily need all the data; they need a judgment. They need to know whether the hospital is okay, whether it is clean and whether it cares for people. That is what is required.

John Healey: The report is clear that at the heart of this dreadful series of deaths was a failure to pursue the concerns and complains of patients and their families vigorously and properly. The Prime Minister mentioned the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Does he know that unlike other professional regulators that body does not have the power to review, reopen or revise disciplinary decisions, even when there is fresh information or when it thinks it has got it wrong? Will he fix that flaw without delay?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why we asked the Law Commission, as I said in my statement, to consider sweeping away its current rules and putting proper rules in their place.

Tony Baldry: Is there not always a role for concerned community oversight? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that members of local health and wellbeing boards, members of HealthWatch and constituency members of Parliament should always be welcome visitors at their local hospitals?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Members of scrutiny councils or any of the other bodies he mentioned should be able to walk the wards and have a look around, and that is vital. It is worth looking in detail at the report’s findings on scrutiny committees and the rest of it. It has some pretty good recommendations on how they need on occasion to sharpen their act.

Barbara Keeley: The executive summary of the Francis report states on page 45:
	“There was an unacceptable delay in addressing the issue of shortage of skilled nursing staff.”
	The CQC tells us that 17 hospitals are operating with dangerously low levels of nursing staff, resulting in poor care. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time
	to do something about levels of nursing and those ratios rather than leaving it to hospital boards or individual trust boards to decide them?

David Cameron: What the hon. Lady says about the importance of having clear benchmarks for what is acceptable is right. Over the past few years, the ratio of nurses to acute beds has improved. The paragraph to which she refers is interesting, as it states:
	“There can be little doubt that the reason for the slow progress”
	in dealing with the shortage of nurses
	“and the slowness of the Board to inject the necessary funds…was the priority given to ensuring that the Trust books were in order for the”
	foundation trust application. This is absolutely what Francis is saying: finances and targets were put ahead of patient care, so that is the big change that needs to take place.

Lorely Burt: I have here the executive summary to the report; it alone is 100 pages long. The Prime Minister has acted swiftly in appointing an inspector of hospitals and exacting the help of a number of specialists in the industry. Does he agree that we also need political will and scrutiny, and will he ensure that all the findings can have full cross-party parliamentary scrutiny to drive the changes and ensure that this will never happen again?

David Cameron: I hope that we can have not just scrutiny but a proper debate. I am sure that the Leader of the House—who played a key role in ensuring that the inquiry happened, for which I pay tribute to him—will be able to make time for a debate at some stage to consider the report in detail. It is absolutely enormous, and I have the three volumes of it here, but helpfully volume 2 goes through the key areas—the strategic health authorities, the primary care trust and what the regulator did—so that we can see an outline of the concerns about the lack of focus on patient care that flow through it so clearly.

Grahame Morris: I compliment the Prime Minister on his statement and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on his response. I have not had a chance to go through the recommendations, but the Prime Minister mentioned the failings at trust board level. Will he agree to consider a recommendation from the health service section of my union, Unite, that a national intelligence unit linked to a national telephone hotline, which could be answerable to the chief inspector of hospitals under the CQC, could analyse the information coming in and identify where the problems were so that the chief inspector could take corrective action?

David Cameron: I will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that colleagues in the Department of Health will, too. My sense is that there is quite a lot of transparent information about mortality and morbidity rates, through Dr Foster and the rest of it. In too many cases, there has been an unwillingness to act and to act with enough clarity. We should focus on that, too.

Paul Uppal: Of the three main failings highlighted in the Francis report, may I point out particularly to my right hon. Friend the third—that of the defensive culture in the NHS? Historically, clinical negligence cases continually highlight the fact that it is the recognition by hospitals that something has gone wrong that often blocks the issue being addressed. My right hon. Friend was absolutely correct to say that often families are not looking for financial remuneration but for a clear apology. May I impress on him and the Secretary of State my request that any future inspection regime should put that at the heart and the centre of any inspection?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. That was why I mentioned in my statement the importance of trying to have a transparent and frank inspection system, such as that in schools, because that challenges complacency. If a report is received that says that a school is not up to standard, the community knows and the teachers know. Yes, it can be depressing for a while as it is sorted out, but it is much better than leaving problems to fester.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I am sure that he will agree that care cannot and should not be measured as a chargeable unit. May I draw his attention to a report by the Health Committee, published in June 2011, on complaints and litigation? How will he ensure that it is not just the front-line overstretched staff who must listen to patient voices but, more important, the senior management?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is right. What strikes me as I meet hospital managers is when they say that at their board meetings they take patient care, clinical standards and safety standards first. That is the right thing to do because if a hospital is not safe, if it is not clean and if it is not caring for people, it is not doing its job—never mind whether it is meeting its targets or whether the numbers add up. That is absolutely at the heart of this question and that is one of the things that needs to change.

Andrew George: Crucially, the report identified the problem of inadequate staffing levels, which often lies at the heart of care problems in the NHS. However, only recommendation 163 of the 290 recommendations mentions any action on that. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government bring forward stronger guidance to benchmark registered nurse to patient ratios on hospital wards to address that fundamental basic problem?

David Cameron: I have said that I think there is a role for benchmarking and considering those issues, but we would be missing something if we thought that this was all about systems and figures. Quality of patient care, vocation and compassion must be at the heart of all this.

Ronnie Campbell: The Prime Minister mentioned that Members of Parliament should be involved and I think the report mentioned it, too. When I first came to this place more than 20 years ago, I was stuck on a Committee called the parliamentary Select Committee for the ombudsman, who has the
	power of a High Court judge. We used to look at health service cases very regularly and bring the board members and chief executive in front of us. Why was the ombudsman not involved in this case?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about how things have changed, and perhaps we should look at that. As Members of Parliament take an interest in this, let me read what the report says on page 47. It is not good news, I am afraid:
	“Local MPs received feedback and concerns about the Trust. However, these were largely just passed on to others without follow up or analysis of their cumulative implications. MPs are accountable to their electorate, but they are not necessarily experts in healthcare and are certainly not regulators. They might wish to consider how to increase their sensitivity with regard to the detection of local problems in healthcare.”
	I join others in pleading guilty: sometimes we can be too defensive of our local institutions, and sometimes we need to dig deeper into particular issues and complaints. It is important, as I have said, that everyone considers the report, and that is one for all of us.

Julian Smith: As part of the Government’s response to the report, may I urge the Prime Minister to look at the use of compromise agreements and gagging clauses when NHS managers leave the organisation?

David Cameron: I certainly think Health Ministers should look at what my hon. Friend says. One of the outcomes should be a discussion about what sort of contracts are appropriate for board members, both for their service in the NHS and if anything goes wrong.

Sarah Champion: I would like to speak from my recent experience of being a chief exec of a children’s hospice. The CQC is a very good organisation, but in my own area, each officer is responsible for up to 40 organisations, so the attention they can give each one is not that much. I was pleased that the leaders of both parties have said that they would support more funding for the CQC and strengthening it.
	All nurses have to register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is a disciplinary body, but it can take up to 18 months for the disciplinary process to go through. The NMC is the investigator, the judge and the jury. I am supportive of the Royal College of Nursing, which genuinely seems to be trying to help and support its nursing staff to give better care. It is prioritising care but, again, it is under-resourced.
	To try to end on a positive, I urge the Prime Minister to look at examples of good practice. Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust has an exemplary service of putting patients first. It has 12,000 members who select a governing body, and the board is responsible to that governing body. It seems that one of the problems with Mid Staffordshire was that the public were not right at the heart of the organisation.

David Cameron: I am sure the hon. Lady is right, and I agree that there are many examples of excellent practice, not only in health care and patient care but in responding to complaints and involving the local public; I see that across the country.
	I have just read out what the report says about MPs, and this is what it says about the Royal College of Nursing:
	“At Stafford, the RCN was ineffective both as a professional representative organisation and as a trade union. Little was done to uphold professional standards among nursing staff or to address concerns and problems being faced by its members.”
	That is uncomfortable for the RCN to read, just as it is uncomfortable for us to read what it says about MPs, but it must be acted on. Likewise, the Care Quality Commission is improving, but more work needs to be done. Francis is pretty excoriating, and says on page 931 of volume 2:
	“The CQC has an unhealthy culture, in which senior managers are more concerned about public image than delivery, which is hostile to internal and external criticism, and in which staff feel under pressure and unsupported.”
	There is real work to be done in all these organisations to get this right.

Charlotte Leslie: “Systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.” That is T. S. Eliot, but it is a slightly pithier version of many recommendations in the Francis report. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a tragedy that it has taken a tragedy to produce the report? My dad, as president of the British Orthopaedic Association in 2006, gave a lecture entitled “A New Professionalism” to reflect the alarm of clinicians at the changing culture in the 2000s, with a burgeoning management system and management priorities, tick boxes and targets taking precedence over clinical priorities. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that systems cannot replace professionalism, but will he listen to current professionals, who say that professionalism, which is what keeps the NHS afloat, is being eroded by things such as the working time directive?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend packed a lot into her question, but I agree that we need greater clinical leadership across the system. When we look at Francis carefully, what he is saying is that things such as targets and better financial management were important. We cannot have an organisation such as a hospital, which is a multi-million-pound organisation with thousands of staff, without proper management, proper finances and the rest of it. We have to make sure that there is proper clinical leadership, and that the focus is on care and quality, as her father said.

Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree that what happened at Mid Staffs was not just a failure of regulation but a failure of basic humanity? Apart from a few whistleblowers, ward sisters, nurses, doctors and consultants must have seen what was happening on those wards day after day, and did nothing, although their professional duty obliged them to speak up for their patients. Will he therefore look at any issues that need to be addressed in the regulatory bodies to enable such failures among staff to be tackled, because people who do that should not be working in the NHS?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady speaks for everyone in saying that, which is why all these organisations, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Royal College of Nursing and the General Medical Council have to think about action when behaviour is not
	appropriate or professional codes are seriously breached. People should be struck off and should not be able to work again.

Chris Skidmore: Page 1312 of volume 2 of the report describes a meeting that took place on 14 May 2008 between the chair of the Healthcare Commission investigation, Sir Ian Kennedy, and Sir David Nicolson before the investigation reported. In that meeting, the report states that Sir David Nicholson said that a local campaign group against Mid Staffordshire had been in existence for some time. He added:
	“Clearly patients needed to express their views but he hoped the Healthcare Commission would remain alive to something which was simply lobbying or a campaign as”
	opposed
	“to widespread concern.”
	I find those comments from the head of the NHS at the time utterly unacceptable. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he investigate Sir David Nicholson’s comments?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We should be clear, however, that David Nicholson has apologised publicly and repeatedly for the failure of the strategic health authority of which he was in charge for some important months during this whole approach.
	The report makes it clear that we should not try to seek individual scapegoats, and I believe that Sir Robert Francis said this morning that too often that is what happens after a report is published: find someone to take responsibility, fire them out the barrel of the gun, then the job is done. That is not the case: in my view, David Nicholson has a deep affection for our national health service, does a good job on the NHS Commissioning Board, and he has thoroughly apologised and recognised his responsibilities for what went wrong in Stafford. The trust board was overwhelmingly responsible. Clearly all the other organisations, including the strategic health authority, need to learn the lessons, and I think that Sir David Nicholson has done so.

David Anderson: Speaking as a former care worker and president of Unison, which is the biggest trade union representing people in health and social care, I am convinced that members of that union and other health workers will welcome the commitment today on developing a culture of zero harm and quality care as the priority, and they will not be frightened of a new inspections regime. However, unless we have a system alongside that which makes sure they have time to do the job and spend time with patients, as well as the resources, both physical and financial, to make that work properly, unfortunately we will have this debate again about another situation in a decade’s time?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, a health service facing growing demands requires growing resources. We are growing those resources, but they are limited, so at the same time we must meet the challenge of increasing productivity and cutting waste in our NHS, which we are doing. I do
	not believe that that should impact on patient care. Every public sector body has to look at how it can become more productive and efficient, but that must not be at the expense of patient care, and that is important for the future.

Sarah Wollaston: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those NHS staff who go to work with great care, compassion and vocation, but will he look in particular at one staff group—health care assistants, who deliver much of the day-to-day personal care in the NHS, yet have relatively poor access to training and development? They have no regulatory body, so if individuals are not acting with care and compassion, they can move on to another institution, and perhaps work unprofessionally there too.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about the NHS, with her long years of experience as a GP. On health care assistants, the Government have said that Robert Francis’s idea of proper training standards needs to be looked at. I tend to agree with that. The issue of registration is more complicated and potentially more bureaucratic. We will certainly look at it, but I think that needs some close examination.

Nicholas Dakin: Hospitals do not exist in isolation. Will Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s immediate investigation into the care in hospitals with the highest mortality rates look at the role of primary, adult and community care in relation to those mortality rates, and the relationship between them?

David Cameron: Yes, I am sure he will do that. These things do not exist in isolation, but I hope we can do such investigations in a more frank way, because we do not want to fall into the culture of complacency or, as Francis says, into seeing the responsibility for quality as lying somewhere else.

Henry Smith: With increasing local clinician influence and with the increasing influence of local councillors and local patients over the commissioning of health services, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of how we can increase that culture of care in our local NHS settings?

David Cameron: There is everything that Francis says in his report about the importance of quality and a culture change. Under the new dispensation in the NHS and with GPs having a more leading role, I hope they will be very inquiring about the standards of care that their patients get when they go to hospital. In the past there was too much division between primary and secondary care. I hope that we are bringing them closer together.

Stephen McCabe: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Reports received by trust directors, governors and others are packed full of data, but in order for people to make sense of that information so that aggregate data in big organisations do not serve to mask problems, rather than shed light on them, do not trusts also have a duty to help people analyse those data?

David Cameron: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is why the role of chief inspector of hospitals could be so important. There is no shortage of data, as the hon. Gentleman says. Francis says:
	“There . . . are a plethora of agencies, scrutiny groups, commissioners, regulators and professional bodies, all of whom might have been expected by patients and the public to detect and do something effective”,
	but it did not occur. We need to make sure that there is one single body that has the power, the ability and the judgment to say good practice/bad practice.

Sarah Newton: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the brave staff in the community and in the hospitals in Cornwall who have been speaking out about poor quality patient care, and reassure me and them that the Care Quality Commission will have the resources to make sure that quality care will be delivered in hospitals, in communities and in social care settings throughout the UK?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to health care professionals in Cornwall. I am particularly grateful to them, as they delivered my daughter two and a half years ago. I am ever grateful for the brilliant service that they performed for me, and it was a very caring environment too. The CQC has the resources it needs. It is a new organisation and has faced many challenges. A big reform of it is under way. Being asked to scrutinise everything from the dentist’s waiting room to the largest hospital in the land is challenging, and we need to work on the organisation and make sure that it can deliver what we need.

Mark Durkan: I commend the Prime Minister for his words and work on the issue. In the culture that he seeks, it is important that hospital chaplains and chaplaincy networks know what observer standing they might have and how and where they should channel any pastoral concerns or compliments that they have. On his important proposal for the chief inspector of hospitals, can the Prime Minister tell us whether that telling new faculty would be available to the devolved hospital services as well?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of chaplains. If those who are closely involved with hospitals see anything going wrong, they should feel a duty to speak out. That could be groups of hospital friends or chaplains. With reference to the devolved Administrations, I expect there are similar issues in terms of culture, which Francis examines, and in terms of complacency and putting patient care above targets, and I am sure that they, too, will want to learn the lessons from the report.

Jackie Doyle-Price: To tackle the culture of complacency that my right hon. Friend spoke about, will he take this opportunity to give a clear and unequivocal message to the board members of foundation trusts throughout the country that they are accountable for the performance of their hospitals and that if there is persistent poor care, the buck stops with them?

David Cameron: I am very happy to do that and to clarify that they are responsible for standards of care, clinical safety and the cleanliness of hospitals, as well as for meeting financial and other targets, and the buck does stop with them.

Bob Blackman: Thousands of people outside the Chamber will be worried about what is going on in their own local hospital: could the same things be going on there? Part of that problem would be the willingness of NHS staff to make the best of a bad job. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the cultural change, it is important that staff say, “We will not put up with poor standards,” and that as part and parcel of that, board management specifically must enforce the highest standards of patient care?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is lots of fantastic practice in our NHS right across the country, but there are problems. That is why I am so passionate about the friends and family test. I saw this in the hospital in Salford, where people are so proud of the fact that they ask the staff, the patients, everybody, “Would you have your friends and family treated in this hospital?” They put it up on the front of the door of the hospital and it is on every single ward. Of course there is no one magic bullet answer to the whole problem, but if there is a problem in a hospital or on a specific ward, it would be picked up quite quickly if there was that sort of very open and publicly available test.

Marcus Jones: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in implementing the recommendations of the report, he will seek to break down the culture of some in the NHS who close ranks to close down complaints, rather than dealing with them in a proper, open and transparent fashion, so that they and the rest of the NHS can learn from any failure that has taken place?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a sense sometimes that when problems occur, there can be a closing of ranks. This clearly happened at Stafford. It is not acceptable and I am sure all hospital trusts will want to learn the lessons from that.

Penny Mordaunt: I welcome the greater focus on care as well as finance in assessing performance that the Prime Minister has outlined. Does he agree that this will be welcomed by clinicians throughout the country, who have fantastic ideas about improving care and getting more from their budgets, but currently cannot get the management to listen to them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the aims of the reforms is to give greater clinical leadership. With greater clinical leadership, particularly in the commissioning groups, which are the ones tasking the hospitals, there is a much greater chance that what she talks about will happen.

Andrew Bridgen: A legal duty of candour would have ensured that the serious and systemic failures at Mid Staffordshire hospital came to light far earlier and ultimately would have saved many lives. On that topic, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents, Frank and Janet Robinson, who tragically and needlessly lost their only son, John Moore-Robinson, at that hospital?

David Cameron: It is right for my hon. Friend to speak out for the victims and to raise a specific case. The Health Ministers here with me today will look
	carefully at the issue of a duty of candour to see whether that would make a difference in the way that we want for this hospital and for others as well.

John Pugh: One of the clear causes of the tragedy, according to Francis, is a
	“failure to appreciate…the…disruptive loss of corporate memory and focus resulting from repeated, multi-level reorganisation.”
	What lessons does the Prime Minister draw from this about NHS reorganisations?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. What Francis says is:
	“A failure to appreciate until recently the risk of disruptive loss of corporate memory and focus resulting from repeated, multi-level reorganisation.”
	He also says, though, that he thinks the changes required
	“can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms”,
	so I hope we can allow the changes that Francis is talking about to be made within the proposed structure. Everyone—all parties, all Governments—should learn from this report. I hope we can then allow the structure to bed down and to deliver the changes that everybody wants.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend’s statement was hard listening for those of us who care about the NHS and respect and value the work of the vast majority of those within it. Changing a culture of targets and a focus on process is an enormous task. Does he agree that one of the ways to improve care is to unlock the innate compassion of those who work in our NHS and our caring professions?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember going to the Royal College of Nursing conference at Harrogate in his constituency. Ministers are not saying this to nurses; nurses are saying to Ministers that, as they told me, they want to have this sense of compassion and vocation at the heart of their training. Nurses themselves think that some of the training systems have got too far into the classroom and too far away from the hospital ward, and they are the ones asking us to get that right. It is good to see Health Ministers nodding in agreement as I say that.

Iain Stewart: I welcome the proposals for the CQC to make public judgments about the quality of care, but those judgments must be in a form that is accessible and understandable to the public. Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that they are not too general, so that if a specific problem in our wards is rightly identified, it does not cloud the otherwise excellent care that the hospital might be providing?

David Cameron: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. If we are going to challenge complacency and have more frankness and openness about potential failure, we also need to have the more grown-up attitude that failure in one part of one hospital does not necessarily mean that the other parts are failing.

Gavin Barwell: Like the Prime Minister, I have a personal debt to the NHS: it saved my life when I had cancer as a child. As a constituency MP, I regularly deal with concerns about the quality of care at Croydon University hospital. With that in mind, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his focus on the key measure of how well a hospital is serving its community—that is, the proportion of people working there who would be happy for a family member to be treated there.

David Cameron: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I am not claiming that the friends and family test is the only change that needs to happen in the NHS, but if we are looking for something that will provide a pretty effective traffic light, then having that test, and having its results plastered over every ward in every hospital in the country, will be a pretty good start. The chilling statistic that only a quarter of staff members at Stafford would have been happy for their relatives to be treated in the hospital that they themselves worked in should have been the moment—publicised on every ward, in the local newspaper, and on the door of the hospital—when everyone said, “Hold on a minute: we’ve got to take some action here.”

Andrew Percy: My right hon. Friend compared the new inspection regime to that in schools. However, is not the challenge that whereas in schools service users—pupils and parents—are all too willing to speak up, in hospitals service users often feel that they are a burden to the service or are voiceless? Will he therefore ensure that any new inspection regime measures what protocols are in place specifically to monitor the care of patients who have nobody to speak for them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend, who has great experience of being at the sharp end of inspections in schools, speaks with great knowledge and expertise. Because patients in hospitals often do not want to say anything bad about the hospital while they are in it, it is important for them that the friends and family test is carried out once they get home. I have listened carefully to his point about carers and others.

Mr Speaker: I am most grateful to the Prime Minister and to colleagues. I think that everything has now been said and, indeed, that it has been said by everybody.

Financial Services

Greg Clark: I would like, Mr Speaker, to update the House on the investigations of the Financial Services Authority, the US Department of Justice and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission into the attempted manipulation of the setting of the London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, interest rates. As Members will be aware, LIBOR is a major benchmark reference rate that is fundamental to the workings of the UK and international financial markets. Barclays and UBS have previously been fined by the authorities for attempted rate manipulation. Other financial institutions are under investigation, but today’s reports relate specifically to RBS.
	Findings published today by the FSA show that certain individuals in RBS sought to manipulate LIBOR submissions. This is an extremely serious matter, motivated by greed. The FSA found that RBS breached two of its principles for businesses. First, between October 2006 and November 2010 it repeatedly breached the proper standards of market conduct required by the FSA’s principle 5. It made LIBOR submissions that took into account its own derivatives trading positions or took into account the profit and loss of its money market trading books; and it sought to manipulate the submissions of others by colluding with panel banks and broker firms. The breaches of principle 5 relate to LIBOR rates in three currencies: Japanese yen, Swiss francs and US dollars.
	Secondly, from 2006 to as recently as March 2012, RBS failed to have the necessary risk management systems and controls required by the FSA’s principle 3. There was a failure to identify and manage the risks of inappropriate submission, an absence of any submissions-related systems and controls until March 2011, and inadequate transaction monitoring systems throughout. Furthermore, in response to a specific request by the FSA as a result of its inquiries into LIBOR, RBS attested to the FSA in March 2011 that its LIBOR-related systems and controls were adequate. It transpires that RBS’s systems and controls were inadequate, and so RBS’s statement to the FSA was incorrect.
	These findings are grave. At least 219 requests for inappropriate submissions were documented, and at least 21 individuals, including at least one manager, were involved in the inappropriate conduct. In the light of these findings, the FSA has rightly imposed a fine of £125 million on RBS, reduced to £87.5 million for early payment. This figure is less than the £160 million fine imposed on UBS but greater than the £59.5 million fine imposed on Barclays, in proportion to the scale of the offences committed.
	Also today, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that it has found RBS guilty of similar offences in the US and has imposed a fine of $325 million. The US Department of Justice has announced a fine of a further $150 million and, in addition, has reached a deferred prosecution agreement with RBS plc; and RBS has accepted one criminal charge for wire fraud relating to its Japanese securities subsidiary.
	The Government are clear that any organisation or individuals found guilty of this sort of wrongdoing must take full responsibility and should be punished, if appropriate, by both the civil and the criminal law. The FSA’s report identifies that at least 21 individuals were actively involved in the misconduct, including derivatives traders, RBS’s primary LIBOR submitters and one manager. Of these, eight have resigned, six have been dismissed, and all the remainder are facing disciplinary proceedings.
	In the light of the findings at Barclays last year, the Serious Fraud Office has launched a criminal investigation into attempted LIBOR manipulation across a number of financial institutions, to which it is rightly committing a large amount of resource, including a 40-strong team. As the Chancellor has previously said, where laws have been broken in this country, the Government and the relevant authorities will continue to make sure that the authorities have all the resources they need to make sure that those who are guilty are brought to justice.
	But this action against the perpetrators is clearly not sufficient. It is right that in the face of misconduct of this scale, responsibility is taken at senior levels. That is why, although the report clears senior management of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the misconduct, it is right that John Hourican, the leader of the investment bank since 2008, will leave RBS after handing over his responsibilities. He will receive his minimal contractual entitlement of 12 months’ notice and other contractual entitlements. He will forfeit 100% of his unvested bonus and his long-term incentive plan awards that are subject to clawback, totalling some £5 million, as well as, of course, forfeiting any bonus that he would have received in 2012.
	This still leaves the question of the very substantial fines that RBS will have to pay. While it is right that RBS faces the full force of regulatory action in the light of its misconduct, the Government believe that it would clearly be wrong for the taxpayer to foot the bill. In the case of the FSA fines, the Government have changed the system so that all revenue from fines will be used to the benefit of taxpayers. In the Financial Services Act 2012, which received Royal Assent just before Christmas, we have made provision for all such fines, net of enforcement costs, to go to the Exchequer. So when RBS pays the FSA £87.5 million in fines, everything after enforcement costs will flow directly back to the taxpayer. Thanks to this reform, the Government have been able to announce previously that £35 million of fines imposed during 2012 will be used to support Britain’s armed forces community, with an additional £5 million going to the Imperial War Museum.
	Money raised by British authorities from banks for their misdemeanours and recklessness in financial markets will be used as a force for good and go to people and causes that demonstrate the best of British values. This will include military good causes, which provide lasting support to servicemen and women, who provide invaluable service to this country, as well as their families and veterans. We will announce specific details of further disbursements in due course.
	In the case of the US authorities’ fines, I am insistent that the taxpayer should not foot the bill. That is why these fines must be met in full from past, present and future reductions in the bonuses and pay of RBS. The Government support the action that Stephen Hester
	and the RBS board have rightly taken in response to the very serious issues that have been identified. The House should know that this has been a complex, meticulous and co-ordinated investigation between the international regulatory authorities. I wish to thank all three parties for their diligence and co-operation in identifying and punishing those responsible.
	The Government have made it clear that the Royal Bank of Scotland must take every step necessary to ensure that this scandal never happens again. The structure and culture that allowed these events to take place must be changed fundamentally. This also requires ensuring that RBS is focused on the right priorities. That is why the Government support RBS’s statement that it will continue to shrink its investment banking operations and focus on serving its core business customers. This smaller, more efficient markets business will be good for RBS customers, particularly UK businesses.
	Today’s findings are a further demonstration of the importance of the tough and swift action that this Government took in response to the first findings of attempted LIBOR manipulation concerning Barclays in June 2012. LIBOR manipulation happened in many countries, but no country has responded as quickly or as decisively as Britain has now done. The Chancellor commissioned Martin Wheatley, the chief executive-designate of the Financial Conduct Authority, to review LIBOR and the corresponding criminal sanctions regime. His review was published 13 weeks later and the Government accepted his recommendations in full last October.
	The Government and the House proceeded immediately to implement those reforms through the Financial Services Act, which received Royal Assent in December. As colleagues will know, secondary legislation has been published in draft and will be debated in this House in the coming weeks, introducing the new regulatory and criminal sanctions regime underlying LIBOR and other benchmarks.
	LIBOR activities will be within the scope of statutory regulation, including the submission and administration of LIBOR. Where people have broken the law, the Government will ensure that the authorities have all the resources they need to make sure that they are pursued and punished. The British Bankers Association is being replaced as the operational LIBOR administrator. Baroness Hogg is chairing an expert panel that will identify an appropriate successor.
	The Government strongly support the various international initiatives taking place on wider benchmark reform. To restore trust, it is essential that any reform proposals are co-ordinated at a global level to ensure consistency in how benchmarks are governed and regulated. More broadly, this case reinforces the need for the changes already put in train by the Government to rebuild confidence in our banking system overall, and to ensure that such events cannot be repeated.
	The previous regulatory regime failed. No institution was clearly enough focused on financial stability or conduct issues. The Financial Services Act establishes a new system of focused financial service regulation, including the Financial Policy Committee to oversee macro-prudential regulation, the Prudential Regulatory Authority to ensure the stability of individual banks, and the Financial
	Conduct Authority, a new, independent and specialist conduct regulator capable of focusing on exactly the types of issues that we will be discussing today.
	There are also broader issues to be tackled in relation to the culture and professional standards of the banking system. The commission on banking standards, comprised of expert representatives from this House and the House of Lords, has been established to do precisely that—to identify ways not only of raising professional standards, but of protecting the consumer from the inherently more risky world of investment banking. I thank members of the commission for the important work that they are carrying out.
	In conclusion, this is another day of shame for Britain’s banks and it is vital that we recognise it as such, not because Britain stands alone in this and similar scandals—which, as we know, is very far from being the case—but because Britain must stand out in the way that we put things right.
	Let there be no excuses. Instead, let us have enduring, fundamental reform—and yes, let us have justice, too. Any organisation or individuals found guilty of a crime must take full responsibility and should be punished by the law, while the ordinary taxpayer must not and will not pay the price of their misdeeds. If, in the process, we hold our financial sector to higher standards than elsewhere in the world, that is nothing to shrink away from. Indeed, it is something that we must not only welcome, but actively pursue. That is why we have put in place a vastly stronger system of regulation so that misconduct can be prevented, not just punished. It is also why we look forward to the further recommendations of the parliamentary commission.
	“My word is my bond” is the motto on which the City was built, and we must rebuild that bastion of confidence here in Britain—the best place in the world to do business, but the worst place in which to abuse the trust on which free enterprise depends.

Christopher Leslie: This is a very serious setback for RBS on its road to recovery, and another stain on the reputation of UK banking. It is not just a case of excessive risk-taking by investment bankers; it is about the corrupt manipulation, until quite recently, of what should have been a trustworthy and independent index determining the inter-bank interest rate.
	How much more evidence does the Chancellor need before he can agree to truly radical reforms for our banking system? Yet again, we have seen an appalling saga of interest rate fixing—not confined to one bank, but across the whole industry—but the Government still refuse to take a back-stop power for full separation in case ring-fencing does not work. Just what will it take for the penny to drop? Why will the Financial Secretary not accept fully what we have been saying since last year, namely that the Government must implement both the letter and the spirit of the Vickers recommendations and that we must see fundamental culture change? If that does not happen, the banks will need to be fully split up.
	Those doing business with the banks will be astonished by these revelations. Will the Financial Secretary explain in simple terms how ordinary companies and customers
	with mortgages or savings linked to LIBOR will ever find out if they have been fleeced as a result of this fraudulent activity? If those customers have lost out because of LIBOR rate rigging, how and when will they get their money back?
	Despite the Financial Secretary’s claim that the Government reacted swiftly, does he regret not getting ahead of the scandal as it emerged last year? On LIBOR, I asked his predecessor, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), during a Financial Services Bill Committee sitting last March whether the Government had a view about whether there was manipulation and whether changes needed to be made to the regulatory arrangements. He stood up and answered with the single word: no. The Treasury has, of course, come to regret that stance and, several months later, this tremendous scandal began to leak out.
	Will the Financial Secretary update the House on the process for extricating the LIBOR setting process from the British Bankers Association and when an independent and more transparent arrangement will be secured? Was not the 2012 Act a missed opportunity, not just because it failed to widen the regulatory perimeter to cover LIBOR, but because it left doubt over whether regulators can prevent benchmark rigging in other trades, such as the gas and electricity markets, commodities, metals and oil? Rather than wait for Europe to legislate, the UK Government need to wake up and take preventive steps now. We will table amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill in the coming weeks.
	Does the Financial Secretary agree that we also need new rules to protect whistleblowers who highlight failures inside the banks, and that we must ensure that offences created to punish misleading statements also properly cover the foreign operations of our UK banks? The Financial Secretary has said that the large fines for RBS will be clawed back in part from the bank’s bonus pots, but is it not now clear that fundamental changes are needed to the pay and bonus culture across the banking sector, including a repeat of the banker bonus tax to pay for opportunities for young people across the country? The Business Secretary said this morning that he has a plan for the RBS shares owned by the taxpayer. Does the Financial Secretary agree or disagree with that? What exactly is the Government’s policy on the future plans for the RBS shareholding?
	Taxpayers and bank customers are growing sick and tired of being let down by the banks day after day. Does this not all boil down to a question of trust—a question not only of whether British customers can trust their banks, but of whether investors across the world continue to trust their money with the City of London more than with other financial centres? Britain’s financial services reputation is on the line. Our economy needs a healthy and sustainable banking sector, so we must rapidly clean up the system and put UK financial services on the path towards respectability, integrity and professionalism.

Greg Clark: It is, of course, right that we do that. I have been very clear that we are taking the steps that we are taking to restore the international reputation of the City and to make it pre-eminent in the world as a place in which people have confidence.
	I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have taken this opportunity to reflect on the contribution
	that the previous Government made to the decline in the reputation of the City. It is not as if the chaotic regulatory regime was not foreseen. In November 1997, during the passage of the legislation that set up the flawed Financial Services Authority, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said:
	“The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.”
	He went on to say that the Government of the day
	“may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 732.]
	That was the warning that the Conservative party gave the Government at that time, but it was ignored comprehensively for their 13 years in office.
	We have moved quickly, as most reasonable people would concede. We already have a Financial Services Act on the statute book and we have set up an eminent commission chaired by Sir John Vickers to recommend far-reaching changes to the financial services system. The previous Government’s contribution to the eminence of the City was to knight Fred Goodwin, for heaven’s sake. The Opposition spokesman brags about the reforms to the regulatory system that he recommended in a Public Bill Committee, but it was the shadow Chancellor, when he had my job, who said that
	“nothing should be done to put at risk a light touch, risk-based regulatory regime.”
	We are making the reforms that it falls to us to make.
	I will answer some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. We will have discussions about the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Most reasonable people would conclude that the reforms that we are making, with the advice of the Vickers commission and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, lead the world in this area. The Liikanen report, which is being recommended at a European level, explicitly refers to the reforms that we are contemplating. It is right that we should be ahead on this.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the Financial Services Authority must investigate whether any individuals or firms lost out as a result of the attempted manipulation. I call it attempted manipulation because we are talking about the rates that were submitted and it is not necessarily the case that the LIBOR reference rate changed in response. However, it is right that the FSA should make that assessment.
	The process that Martin Wheatley recommended to replace the BBA is under way. It will become a regulated activity as soon as the statutory instruments are passed. Baroness Hogg and her committee are setting up a process to invite tenders, which will not include the BBA, to administer that process. As Martin Wheatley said, it is necessary that that is done in a way that does not undermine confidence in the rate-setting process during the transition, because it is fundamental to many contracts, as the hon. Gentleman implied, including people’s mortgages.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned other benchmarks. The powers that we took in the amendments that we made to the Financial Services Act 2012 before Christmas
	allow us quickly to specify any other benchmarks that might be subject to such abuse. Our response has been co-ordinated with the international authorities and nobody regards the powers that we have as inadequate to the task of dealing with other abuses.
	On whistleblowers, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that people within banks and financial services should have the confidence to report abuse. A very small number of people are responsible for something that is besmirching the reputation of many millions of people up and down the country who work hard, day and night, for banks. Those people have had reason, over the years, to be proud of their career. It is important, not least for those people, that the institutions for which they work recover their reputations.
	On the shareholding in RBS, it is of course the Government’s intention to return it, at the appropriate time, to private ownership. It is not right that we should own such a significant stake of a high street bank. It was necessary for us to do so because of the crisis that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know all about. As soon as it can be returned to independence, the better.

Andrew Tyrie: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the US fines will be clawed back from bonuses. LIBOR, serious though it is, is just the tip of a large iceberg of banking malpractice that is now being exposed to view. The Minister ended his statement by pointing out that we should not shrink from imposing higher standards than other countries. Does he agree that if we impose high-quality regulation, it will not only be morally right, but may attract good business to the UK and be in the UK’s economic interests overall?

Greg Clark: I do agree with that. The work that my hon. Friend’s commission is continuing to do on the culture of banking is important and will inform the further reforms that we need to make. I do not think that we should be shy of setting high standards in this country; in fact, it is necessary to do so. At a time when trust is in flight across the world, there is an opportunity for the City of London to establish itself as a haven of probity and safety in a volatile world. High standards, far from being a threat or a danger to our financial institutions, are necessary for their continued prosperity, which I and the whole House want to see flourish.

George Mudie: The Minister has referred to a need for cultural change. One culture that it is necessary to change is the banks’ unwillingness to lend to small businesses. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has spoken today about RBS and the lack of lending to small businesses, even with the recent initiatives. Have the Government given any thought to using the 350 RBS branches that they have to dispose of for the business bank, thereby giving it a regional and local presence so that small businesses can go to it, discuss loans and hopefully agree them?

Greg Clark: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have more local, business-focused banks in this country. I hope that we can recover the personal
	knowledge, service and understanding of the needs of business that branches used to have in abundance. RBS is not nationalised, so we cannot direct it in the way that he suggests. However, the reforms that we are making, particularly in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, emphasise the importance of increasing competition and of having new entrants. As he knows, some of the divestments that have been required recently have brought entrants into the market that have concentrated on lending to small and medium-sized businesses. That is a force for good, but we need—and I want to see—much more of it.

Mark Field: May I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement? I also associate myself with the words of the Treasury Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).
	The City of London should have nothing to fear from arbitrage, although it is sometimes said that it should. If we have a regulatory system that is robust and fair, it will pass the test of time and, in the medium to long term, will become a great attraction of the City of London.
	Whether we like it or not, we need our banks more than ever, whether we are small businesses or individuals. There is a danger that with 20:20 hindsight, we are finding ever more scandals and examples of mis-selling, whether with LIBOR, interest rate swaps or payment protection insurance. Will the Minister make it clear to the banks that we need to draw a line under these scandals? There is a danger that we are falling further and further down a slope and that it will be extremely difficult for banks to regain the trust of the public at large. Without that trust, the broader economy will suffer

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. He has worked in and represented with distinction the City of London over the years, and more than anyone he recognises the importance of it re-establishing its prestige. Part of doing that and of sending a signal to the current generation working in financial services is to say clearly that the misdeeds of the past need to be put right. Where people or small businesses up and down the country have suffered detriment, we should not turn a blind eye. We should be rigorous in holding people to account, and acknowledging the harm done to businesses that have suffered from past mis-selling, and when we do that we should look—as in this case—to recover the costs of such mis-selling from the perpetrators. The Chancellor has set out that principle and I expect the banks to follow it in the months and years ahead.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the statement and particularly the fact that the fines will be paid by the banks and not the taxpayer. I also welcome the fact that the British Bankers Association will no longer have anything to do with LIBOR. However, this is not just about who calculates the LIBOR rate, but how it is calculated. Will the Minister update the House and say how we will have transparency and the confidence to know that rates submitted by the banks are those at which they can borrow money, rather than the acts of fiction, fixes and fiddles that we saw over many years with many banks?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One recommendation of the Wheatley review was that the setting of LIBOR benchmarks should include objectivity. That will require a reduction in the number of benchmarks because some do not have the volume of transactions to establish that, but the new regulated conduct of LIBOR setting will include a requirement to route the reporting of rates through transactions that are visible to the Financial Services Authority. The opportunity to parlay the commercial interest of particular banks into what is supposed to be an objective rate will therefore no longer be there.

Stephen Williams: My right hon. Friend has delivered his statement in his usual calm and moderate way, but his constituents in Tonbridge and mine in Bristol West will be absolutely disgusted and furious when they discover that a lot of these abuses took place after the £45.5 billion taxpayer-funded bail-out of the Royal Bank of Scotland that saved those jobs. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is clearly still working, but surely one outcome of such abuses should be that any individual involved is struck off—whatever criminal and civil sanctions could be taken against them—and never allowed to work anywhere else in British financial services. If they were a doctor, lawyer or accountant, that is precisely what should happen. That is the real culture change that we need in banking.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. The constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) might be concerned if I sought to represent them, but my constituents in Tunbridge Wells do, I think, share the fury that has been described. For a bank that has caused the taxpayer to bail it out to such an extent to then engage in practices that could—had we not taken action to require clawback—have resulted in further cost to the taxpayer, is outrageous. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) that the individuals implicated in such practices should leave the financial services and find a better living, rather than working in an industry in which trust and confidence is required.

Andrew Love: I hear what the Minister says about the highest standards of regulation for the City of London, but how does he explain the fact that once again, American regulators have imposed fines that are three times higher than those from the FSA, thereby appearing much more robust in their investigation of LIBOR and other issues? Now that we are having a “twin peaks” model, what discussions is the Minister having with the regulator to ensure that it imposes appropriate fines and undertakes proper investigations to ensure that we root out the difficulties of the past?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He will know that there is a long-established culture of very high fines in the US. Fines in this country have increased markedly in recent years, although none of the institutions subject to FSA fines in recent months would regard them as anything other than exacting. It is right for us to follow the practice of other jurisdictions, including the US, in having a more explicit criminal code. Our amendments to the Financial Services
	Act 2012 mean that criminal sanctions explicitly for the manipulation of benchmarks are available that were not there in the past. It is right to take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously and strengthen our enforcement powers, and we are doing that through the legislation that has been passed.

John Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the tough and swift action that he has taken on this matter, but I have a more general question about the culture change that will be required. The extent of the culture change seems to be enormous. Why does he have confidence that it is achievable?

Greg Clark: There are a number of reasons why I think it is achievable. The first is the contribution that regulation can make. As Members have said, it is important to have a more exacting set of regulatory standards that are intolerant of the kinds of abuses that have taken place. Secondly, it is in the commercial and strategic interests of banks to restore the reputation that they used to have for trust. Financial services depend on trust. If people do not trust the banks, they will not do business with them. I think the penny has dropped across the City, and most of the new generation of chief executives understand the connection between their future profitability and performance, and the need to provide decent services to their customers.
	The third reason is a matter being investigated by the Treasury Committee and concerns a failure or subversion of the culture of banking. Banking was always associated with high standards of probity; it was a vocation for people who were thought to be of a rather conservative disposition and inclined not to take excessive risks. That was subverted by exposure to some of the practices of recent years, and because that was inadequately regulated it distorted what should be the right culture in the industry. We need to make changes to all three of those areas, and that is precisely what we have done and what we have embarked on for the rest of the Parliament.

John McDonnell: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), let me urge the Minister that there can be no drawing a line in the sand and no amnesty given until corruption is rooted out. My constituents now look on the City of London as a fetid swamp of corruption. They see only people forgoing bonuses but no one being imprisoned for the swindles that have taken place. There can be no amnesties at all. Will there be any investigation into allegations—I have raised this point previously—of attempts to manipulate the auctions associated with the quantitative easing exercise undertaken by the previous and current Governments?

Greg Clark: I am not aware of those allegations but I will look into them. Any criminal activity in any part of the financial services industry ought to be prosecuted and pursued with the same degree of vigour as in any other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman overstates the case in his reflection of the City. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the City and do a decent job working hard for their clients and businesses up and down the country. They are as outraged as any of us in this House about the damage done to the City’s reputation. The future for us and for our interests is to see that reputation
	restored and root out the corrupt individuals—corrupt is the word in this case—who have done disproportionate damage to the reputation of a set of institutions that should be one of the prides of this country.

Julian Smith: In the light of the report, I urge the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his commission, to look carefully at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s highly successful whistleblower incentive scheme, which gives whistleblowers a cut of fines, and at how we begin to replicate that model.

Greg Clark: The discount in fines given for co-operation is one reason for organisations to co-operate, but I will look at my hon. Friend’s point on individuals.

Sammy Wilson: The report indicates that, so arrogant were some bank workers, they treated themselves as masters of the universe to whom normal rules of fair play did not apply, which has impacted on banks and their reputations. The banks rather than the taxpayers will pay the fines, as they are required to do, but how will the Minister ensure they do not simply pass on additional charges to customers to recoup the costs?

Greg Clark: It is essential that the banks do not do that. They need to be transparent as to the source of the payment to meet the fines—that is essential. Far from those people being masters of the universe, they are culpable of doing a great disservice in falling way short of the standards of behaviour by which most decent people up and down the country would expect to live their lives.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome the statement and its robust and vigorous tone, which sets the scene for the appropriate direction of travel, but does the Minister agree that we need an influx of professionalism to the banking sector? That would be enhanced and made more likely by strong accountability mechanisms
	and more transparency. That is what I hear from small and medium-sized businesses who struggle to contact banks at all.

Greg Clark: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The commission led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) is looking at how such professionalism, which can be found in financial services, can be bolstered and further recognised.

William Bain: The public, who after all own more than four fifths of that bank, will be appalled at the duration and extent of the greed and corruption that has been exposed by the FSA today. Does the Financial Secretary agree that that strengthens the argument made by the Financial Services Consumer Panel that the banks ought to be subject to a fiduciary duty to their customers, as lawyers and company directors are, so that savers and investors have maximum protection?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that will be considered by the commission, which is looking into the culture. It is important that banks recognise that they exist to serve their customers—that is their purpose and the reason why they operate. My recent experience of speaking to some bank boards leads me to believe that they recognise the commercial imperative for that, but he makes a suggestion that I am sure our colleagues will consider.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister firmly for his statement. In particular, I thank him for the £35 million of fines imposed on the banks that will go directly to the armed forces community; £5 million will go to the Imperial War Museum. Will he confirm the criteria by which charity groups such as the Royal British Legion, the Army Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and Help the Heroes can qualify for financial assistance through the fines on the banks?

Greg Clark: As I said in my statement, we will make further announcements on the disbursement of the funds, but they have been earmarked and reserved for the military community.

Point of Order

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a lack of recent Government statements on the deployment of British forces in Mali and other parts of north Africa. Last weekend, the Prime Minister undertook an arduous visit to the area, which included serious discussions with the Algerian Government and others. When the initial statements on Mali were made, we were promised that the House would be regularly updated. Nearly 400 British service personnel are now involved in the operation and we have not had a statement in the House for almost a week. I believe we deserve one.

Nigel Evans: I thank you for the point of order, Mr Corbyn. I have received no notification that any statement will be made on that issue today. Should that alter, the House will be notified in the usual manner, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard your request.

United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Baron: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a referendum in the next Parliament on the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
	We, the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, and all those who have expressed support very much welcome David Cameron’s commitment to hold a referendum in the next Parliament and his initiative. I have been overwhelmed by support for the Bill—indeed, there were so many potential sponsors that we had to draw the names out of a hat—and I thank the many people who have contacted their MPs. It is much appreciated.
	David Cameron is now in step with the British public—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to the Prime Minister by his name.

John Baron: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Prime Minister is in step with the British public. A referendum is only right. The EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined in the early ’70s and it continues to change because of the eurozone crisis. The answer to the crisis from the eurozone capitals is more Europe—more political and economic integration. They have realised somewhat belatedly that they cannot have monetary union and save the euro without fiscal union, but that is not why we joined the EU. We joined for trade, not for politics.
	No one can deny that the EU’s role in our daily lives, which some would describe as meddling, has grown over the decades and continues to grow, and yet we have not stopped to ask the fundamental question of whether that is in our best interests. The timing of the referendum is sensible in that it allows for a renegotiation so we can know what the “in” part of the referendum question is. I wish the Prime Minister well—it will be a hard road because the direction of travel is in the other direction—but I hope he can renegotiate a looser agreement or arrangement with the EU that focuses on trade and not on politics. He might well be able to do so, which would appeal to a great number of people in this country. I hope he does more than Prime Minister Harold Wilson did in 1975. He claimed he had renegotiated and repatriated a lot of powers, but under close scrutiny, it appeared to be a thin claim—it did not amount to a tin of bins.
	Delaying the referendum a touch allows the eurozone crisis to play out and for a proper debate on the merit of membership. All in all, it is a sensible policy. It is right for the country. The British people will finally have their say, having been barred from having a genuine choice by the political establishment for probably more than 30 years, because all the main parties have looked in one direction.
	That is good news, and we welcome it, and yet the policy is dependent on a Conservative victory in the 2015 general election. The Prime Minister made his
	promise as leader of the Conservative party. Legislation will be introduced immediately after a Conservative victory, so this has become a party political issue. As such, many are concerned that there is deep public mistrust of politicians who make promises about EU referendums, because too many have been broken in the past. We question whether the promise will be believed.
	Many people remember Tony Blair’s promise on the EU constitution on the Lisbon treaty. We were promised a referendum and he failed to deliver. Instead, the EU constitution was copied and pasted into the Lisbon treaty and rammed through the House using the Labour Government’s majority. Even Gordon Brown knew—

Nigel Evans: Order.

John Baron: Even the then Labour Prime Minister knew the sham of the situation. He refused to join the photo call and signed the treaty in the privacy of a darkened room—[Interruption.] An hon. Friend suggests a darkened room was the right place for it, and I do not disagree.
	The Liberal Democrats have consistently offered a referendum, but have failed to deliver, even in coalition. [Interruption.] I see the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), nodding in agreement from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] He turned around then. Scepticism about promises made on EU referendums is such that many are critical of the Prime Minister for not delivering on his promise of a referendum in relation to the Lisbon treaty, despite the fact that the ink on the treaty had dried before he came to power. Legislation in this Parliament would therefore address the deficit of trust. A Bill is far more believable than an election manifesto promise, and a referendum would not be dependent on any one party. Any incoming Prime Minister would find it difficult—not impossible, but certainly difficult—to repeal popular legislation.
	Perhaps there is another reason to bring the Bill forward. Legislation now would oblige all parliamentarians to declare their hand and the electorate would then know where they stood. In the past, there has been far too much obfuscation on this issue—no wonder the public have become cynical.
	I am delighted that the Conservative party has adopted this policy, and I suggest that it is now more united on Europe than it has been for a very long time. Apart from a number of principled hon. Members across the
	House, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches seem confused. The Labour leader says one thing and the shadow Foreign Secretary says another. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto says one thing, and in coalition the party does another. I suggest to both parties that their positions are untenable. Let us bring forward this Bill and force them to declare their hand.
	To my own Front Bench, I say that the argument that we cannot bring forward legislation—I am delighted to see the Minister on the Front Bench and I thank him for that—in this Parliament because it would contravene the coalition agreement does not hold water. Same-sex marriage was not in the coalition agreement, yet we voted on it yesterday. I am afraid that that is a very thin argument indeed.
	Let us not forget that I and my colleagues can see no downside to this. It would be a simple piece of legislation. There is no need even to detail the question, as the 2014 Scottish referendum has proved and which is being drafted in this Parliament. There is, therefore, no downside to introducing the legislation in this Parliament.
	In short, a referendum will give the British public an opportunity to have their say, something they have been denied for too long. It is about time we had a more positive relationship with our European neighbours. For too long, it has been a strained relationship. In part, I think that is because the British people have not been happy with the EU’s direction of travel, and in part because they have been frustrated that they have not been able to express their view through the political system, because the three main political parties have all faced in one direction on this issue. That must now come to an end.
	A referendum would lance the boil and, whatever the result, I hope would allow a more positive relationship with the EU based on either trade and co-operation or political and economic union, yet this matter of singular importance to the UK is dependent on one party winning the general election. This issue is far too important for party politics. As such, I urge the House to support the Bill and bring in legislation in this Parliament.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr John Baron, Mr James Clappison, Mr Nigel Dodds, Richard Drax, Mr Frank Field, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Lewis, Jim Shannon, Bob Stewart and Mr John Whittingdale present the Bill.
	Mr John Baron accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 133).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[16th Allotted Day: First Part]
	 — 
	Suicide Prevention

William McCrea: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that the number of suicides in the UK, particularly amongst young people, represents a major challenge for government and society; acknowledges the work that is taking place to address the issue; calls for even more urgency to be shown in seeking to reduce the rate of suicides; notes the danger posed in particular by websites which promote or give information about harmful behaviours such as suicide; and calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.
	For years this subject has been swept under the carpet. I believe it deserves a mature and thoughtful debate. Suicide is a significant problem in our society. Its impact is often sudden and shocking. While we can to some degree prepare ourselves for the death, through ageing, of elderly parents or the loss of loved ones through chronic illness, suicide catches us by surprise. Often there is no warning and we are left with a feeling of utter bewilderment. We ask: was it preventable? Were there warning signs that we failed to recognise? Was it simply a cry for help that went wrong? All of those are questions to which we will, regrettably, never receive an answer.
	It can be seen that suicide touches the lives of many people and is, in every case, a tragedy both for the life that has ended and for the family, friends and community left behind. We must always remember that each person who has been lost to suicide has been someone’s child, someone’s parent, brother, sister or friend. Their passing leaves a wound that does not easily heal, even with the passing of time. In addition, those bereaved by suicide have special needs and require special support, for bereavement by suicide is itself a risk factor for suicide.
	We cannot afford to ignore or be complacent about the prevalence of suicide and self-harm in the United Kingdom. Preventing suicide presents a serious socio-economic issue, as well as a political challenge. It is a problem that we all have a duty to address. There is a great need to change public attitudes and to increase awareness and understanding about suicide as a major public health problem that is largely preventable. Globally, almost 1 million people die from suicide every year. In the past 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide. Suicide is one of the three leading causes of death among those aged 15 to 44 years in many countries. Although suicide rates have traditionally been highest among the male elderly, rates among young people have been increasing to such an extent that they are now the group at highest risk in a third of countries worldwide.
	In 2011, 289 deaths by suicide were recorded in Northern Ireland, with the male suicide rate approximately three times greater than that of females.

Tracey Crouch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on securing this important debate on the Floor of the
	House. He references male suicide. Does he not agree that one of the more worrying statistics is that people who have just come out of prison are at a very high risk of committing suicide in the first two weeks of their release? Does he not agree that we should make better use of community and health care pathways to ensure that we can prevent and protect people who are very vulnerable, such as those coming out of prison?

William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of those pathways. It is vital that every effort be made to ensure that persons at a vulnerable moment in their lives—this is what the hon. Lady was talking about—receive the best possible support. I will develop that point later.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as prison leavers being vulnerable to suicidal tendencies, one of the groups at most risk are young males involved in the drug culture, and is it not odd, therefore, that some people are still campaigning to legalise drug use?

William McCrea: That is very true, and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s comments. Again, I will seek to develop that point later.
	The figures I gave a moment ago represent a welcome reduction on the highest-ever recorded figure of 313 suicides in Northern Ireland in 2010. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland continues to experience higher rates of suicide among adolescents and young adults, particularly young men, than any other part of the UK.
	Deliberate self-harm is also a significant problem, with a growing number of cases being seen in hospital accident and emergency departments. Statistics from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety suggest that almost 500 patients presented at the hospital emergency department in Belfast with deliberate self-harm between April and June 2012. Many more incidents never come to the attention of health services at all. In 2011, the highest rate of registered suicides was recorded in the parliamentary constituencies of Belfast West and Belfast North. In my constituency, 18 lives were lost to suicide, 16 of them males.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend aware of an international study highlighting the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of post-conflict trauma of any post-conflict region across the globe, and that this contributes to the high level of suicide? That is evidenced by the fact that much of it is concentrated in the parts of Northern Ireland where the conflict was fiercest, and it is added to by the fact that many of the people suffering trauma served in the armed forces. What we need in Northern Ireland, under the military covenant, is a specialist centre for the treatment of trauma for those who have served our country.

William McCrea: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I trust that the Minister will take those points very seriously.
	Between January and September last year, 223 deaths by suicide were recorded in Northern Ireland, again with socially deprived areas in Belfast North and Belfast West worst affected. However, although we must concentrate particularly on Belfast North and Belfast West, where
	the rate is highest, suicide has, worryingly, been spreading not only in urban communities, but into rural Northern Ireland—into those areas where people feel isolated and vulnerable to thoughts of suicide.

Bob Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea whether there is a link between suicide and past membership of illegal organisations, and whether those who were inclined to carry out such violence have become so depressed that they take their own lives?

William McCrea: Once again, I hope to touch on that point. I believe that that link needs to be considered. Certainly, for many people who were involved in such activities—perhaps they were drawn into them and now, unfortunately, must live with the consequences for the rest of their lives—guilt can be a leading factor pushing them towards suicide.
	The Bamford review on mental health promotion, published in Northern Ireland in May 2006, reinforced the need to prevent suicide. It found that in the 25 years from 1969 to 1994, more people died by suicide than as a result of the troubles in our Province.

Rehman Chishti: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. He talks about the factors linked to suicide. Will he accept that mental health issues are another key factor linked to suicide and that MPs and others need to remove the stigma attached to mental illness so that people feel able to ask for the help they badly need?

William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly with those remarks. The Bamford report highlighted the link with mental health. I agree that we must remove the stigma attached to mental health, as well as the stigma attached to suicide, because many families are deeply hurt by it.

Madeleine Moon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of research carried out by Louis Appleby, the suicide tsar, showing that 75% of those who commit suicide have had no connection with mental health services, and that it is dangerous to focus suicide help and support only on mental health teams? If we do that, we risk failing to protect many of those who need our help.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter and for commendably seeking to highlight it in one of the Committee Rooms. There is no one reason for a person coming to that place where they feel that suicide is the only way out.

Simon Hughes: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises how much appreciated his colleagues’ choice of subject is today. I declare two interests: I am joint president of a Samaritan branch, through past family links, and I am involved with the organisational charity, Papyrus, which campaigns to prevent suicide among young people in the UK. May I accentuate what he has said? People can feel as depressed in rural areas as they do in urban areas, and there can be no presumption about the reason. Teenagers can be
	very depressed because of medication—I have had family experience of that—and university students because of the pressure of their studies and relationships. It can be for anybody at any time, and organisations such as the Samaritans and Papyrus ought to be known abroad, so that anybody can reach them on the phone.

William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have found a lack of knowledge in the community about the help available through such agencies.
	We community leaders must be willing to say, “This is not a taboo subject. We can talk about this.” The country must be willing to open up. We tell young people to open up when they have a problem or feel isolated, but we legislators must be willing to do the same, and not run away from the issue, treating it as something to be hidden or pushed aside.
	I am delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought this debate before the House today—I know that I have support on this issue from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland—but I really feel that this is a problem right across the United Kingdom. As I pointed out at the beginning, in one year, 1 million people across the world reached the point where they took their own lives. That is very serious and we are not immune to it—not one part or region of the United Kingdom is immune and I can assure hon. Members that not one family is immune either. This issue can touch every family, no matter how rich or how poor. Every family can experience the very same pain and hurt that has been expressed to me. That is why we have secured this debate.
	The report also found that, on average, deaths due to suicide since 2000 have exceeded deaths on the roads and concluded that suicidal behaviour places a heavy human and financial burden on society in Northern Ireland, with an annual cost to the economy of £170 million owing to work days lost and hospital admissions for attempted suicides and suicidal behaviour. Research undertaken by Mike Tomlinson of Queen’s university in 2007 found that the Northern Ireland suicide rate had grown since the mid-1990s, which was attributed to younger people, particularly men, taking their own lives.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman talks about young people. Does he know whether there have been any discussions between the devolved nations about preventing young people from accessing suicide websites? Such prevention work is crucial.

William McCrea: Once again, I am deeply appreciative of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. We will endeavour to take up that point as the debate continues.
	Tomlinson found that about 150 suicides were recorded annually between 2000 and 2004, but by 2006 that figure rose to 291. He argued that the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland might have brought its own problems. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that in 2011 there were 6,045 suicides among people aged 15 and over in the United Kingdom—an increase of 437 compared with 2010. The UK suicide rate increased significantly between 2010 and 2011, from 11.1 to 11.8 deaths per 100,000 of the population.
	That trend was further reflected in Wales, which recorded 341 suicides—its highest rate since 2004. Scotland also saw an increase, from 781 deaths by suicide in 2010 to 889 in 2011.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for setting the scene so clearly for everyone in the Chamber. The suicide rates over the last few years, which he has outlined, cover the period of the economic downturn. Does he feel that, at this time especially and for that very reason—the economy and the downturn in jobs—there should be a greater focus on suicide across the whole of the United Kingdom?

William McCrea: I thank my colleague for his intervention.
	Although I have given a lot of statistics—I will come to some of the causes in a moment—they can be very cold things. I want to draw the House’s attention, very earnestly and gently, to the fact that behind every statistic is a personal tragedy—a personal tragedy that a person reached the point where they felt that there was no other way to go; a personal tragedy because no one can fully understand the loneliness or desperation that a person feels trapped by whenever they reach the point at which they think that the only way out is suicide.
	There is no one reason why people take their own lives. It is often a result of problems building up to the point where that person can see no way out to cope with what they are experiencing. Factors that have been linked with suicide include unemployment; economic decline; personal debt; painful and disabling illness; heavy use of, or dependency on, alcohol or other drugs; children and adults dealing with the impact of family breakdown; the loss or break-up of a close relationship; depression; social isolation; bullying; and poor educational attainment. Those experiences have been shown to make people more susceptible to suicide. It may be that a seemingly minor event becomes the trigger for them attempting to take their own lives—on many occasions not to die, but simply to get relief from their unbearable pain. Low self-esteem, being close to tears and not being able to cope with small, everyday events are all signs that someone is struggling to cope with overwhelming feelings. Yet it is often difficult to tell whether someone is suicidal or depressed, as people in crises react in different ways. Uncharacteristic behaviour can often be a sign that something is very wrong.
	One of the main problems that I want to address in this debate is: where do people turn to for support and help? Let me first acknowledge the work done by our front-line health and social care professionals, and the effort that has gone into the development and delivery of suicide prevention strategies, which aim to identify regional risk factors, establish key objectives via a cross-section of organisations, and seek ultimately to reduce rates of suicide and self-harm throughout the United Kingdom. For example, in Northern Ireland, I appreciate our ministerial co-ordination group in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was established in 2006 to ensure that suicide prevention is a priority across relevant Departments and to enhance cross-departmental co-operation on the issue. I was delighted by the changes made by Minister Poots, so that instead of the group meeting on a needs basis, it meets regularly to provide the sustained effort and leadership needed to reduce the high rate of suicide in Northern Ireland. I commend him for taking a long-term, upstream intervention approach to the problem.
	However, in addition to Government-led initiatives in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, credit must be given to the agencies and voluntary organisations working at the heart of our communities to provide a vital lifeline when one is needed most. I acknowledge the excellent work done by many Church organisations, which give spiritual counselling to many who feel that life is so burdensome that it is not worth the struggle. These organisations—whether Government agencies, voluntary agencies or Church agencies—have a vital role to play in complementing local mental and public health services. This work at the coal face is truly inspirational. I pay tribute to the men and women who dedicate so much of their lives to helping others.
	I said earlier that people needed to know about the availability of those who are willing to help. I say that because about three weeks ago a conference was held in my constituency in Antrim after two suicides had taken place—it was not called by politicians, but by the community, because of a desire in the community to do something. I was delighted and honoured to be part of that occasion, but what I found out that day was that although a multitude of organisations deal with the problem, many in the community do not know about them. Many do not know where help can be got at the moment it is needed.
	Over the past year I have had the pleasure of working closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) with PIPS—the Public Initiative for Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm—a not-for-profit organisation in Belfast North that has been delivering suicide prevention and awareness training since 2008. Through my association with PIPS, I have come to understand how it believes that, through training local people to be more aware of the risk of suicide and of the sources of help available, our communities will be safer and more people will be saved from taking their own lives. Surely this must be all about prevention, because, unfortunately, there is no cure when suicide takes place.

Bob Stewart: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that there is anything the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Government could do to provide publicly funded advertisements on this matter on television in Northern Ireland, for example? Does he also believe that priests could raise the matter when they are preaching, to alert their congregations to the problem? Perhaps he will come to those points in his speech.

William McCrea: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will come to those points. I certainly have endeavoured, when speaking in congregations, to remind them of the loneliness that people experience when they are in that vulnerable situation. No one knows the depths of that valley; no one knows how dark is the night that they are walking through. There must be greater understanding, and we can gain that understanding if people talk to each other and express their own experiences, as is happening in Antrim. That is helpful not only for them but for our understanding and for that of the community.
	Members will also be aware that I have spoken recently in the House about child and adolescent internet safety, following horrific reports in the media of young people taking their own lives as a result of cyber-bullying.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My hon. Friend referred to support groups. I have recently met members of Horizons, a local support group in Lisburn. It is doing excellent work on a voluntary basis, but it is struggling to get the funding that it needs. Many of its members have had family experience of losing a loved one in these circumstances, and they are well placed to provide the support that our communities need, because they have walked through that dark valley. Greater priority for the funding of such groups is essential.

William McCrea: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, the motion
	“calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.”
	The motion goes wider than that, but resources are certainly a problem that such organisations need help with.
	The internet and new media are prominent features in youth culture nowadays. Young people see the use of technology as a vital part of their social lives, and the online environment has created unique opportunities for learning, connection and communication. Almost 99% of children aged between eight and 17 access the internet, and 90% of children aged five to 16 have a computer at home. Although the risks created by the internet and new media have yet to be properly assessed, there is growing concern over the use of the internet for cyber-bullying and for normalising and encouraging suicide and suicidal behaviour.
	The Byron review, conducted in 2008, entitled “Safer Children in a Digital World”, found that
	“there is a range of material on the Internet that may present particular issues for specific groups of children and young people. This includes content or sites that promote or give information about harmful behaviour such as suicide and self harm”.
	The report found that, although some children might be deterred from harmful behaviours by witnessing such content, or might find emotional and social support from others experiencing the same feelings, it was clear that for some children there were major risks. Sites providing information about suicide techniques, for example, could increase the chance of a suicide attempt being successful and decrease the chances of a young person receiving help.

Madeleine Moon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the hosting of such sites is illegal in the United Kingdom, thanks to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The problem is that many of those sites are hosted outside the UK, where they are not illegal. Internet providers need to block access to the sites. They move them down the access chain when people google them, but they do not block access to them altogether. How can we ensure that access to those sites is blocked?

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I intend to touch on that point in a moment.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is covering lots of bases. One of the issues that we face as a society is that young people can become isolated from contact with other young people, other than through the internet or texting. That is a real danger zone. They retire to their bedrooms and they are not seen from one night to the next. Their communication with others is limited.
	The exercise of parental and family responsibility, to ensure that youngsters are out and being monitored so that people can pick up signs that they might be led to suicide sites, is as important as dealing with the sites themselves.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I point out to Members, in relation to those last two interventions, that such interventions should come through the Chair. Instead, they have been focused on the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), whom we all wish to hear.

William McCrea: I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) makes. I was talking to folks at the weekend about how young people isolate and withdraw themselves. If we set our minds back to just a few years ago, we remember that we used to see children playing football on the streets, and little girls out with their prams. If we look at our streets today, we see very few children out there. So where are they? They are in their rooms. They are not with their families. In many cases, the internet has taken over their lives, and that leads to the isolation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	When online discussions or communities emerge around harmful behaviours, there is a risk of what the Samaritans describe as an “echo chamber”, in which users reinforce each others’ behaviour and negative feelings about themselves. In a communication to me, the Samaritans stated that
	“there are some aspects of the ways that individuals interact with one another online, through social networking sites or online chat rooms, that can place vulnerable people at risk by exposing them to detail about suicide methods or conversations that encourage suicide ideation. Indeed in recent years there have been several widely reported cases of individuals taking their own lives having used websites that have provided explicit information on suicide methods or have been used to facilitate suicide pacts. Restriction of access to information about suicide methods is an established component of suicide prevention. However, this is particularly difficult to achieve online not least because suicide related websites hosted abroad are legal in most other countries”.
	The Samaritans have worked in partnership with major companies to develop practical initiatives to support people at risk from suicide online. In November 2010, an initiative was launched in partnership with Google to display the Samaritans helpline number and a highly visited telephone icon above the normal Google search results when people in the UK use a number of search terms related to suicide. The Samaritans also worked closely with Facebook to allow users to get help for a friend they believe is struggling to cope or feeling suicidal. We must express our appreciation to the Samaritans for doing this excellent work.
	These pioneering initiatives are to be commended, but more must be done. The Department of Health suicide prevention strategy in England recognises the need to continue to support the internet industry to remove content that encourages suicide and to provide ready access to suicide prevention services. In Northern Ireland, the refreshed “Protect Life” strategy includes a new objective to develop and implement internet guidelines that seek both to restrict the promotion of suicide and self-harm and to encourage the circulation of positive mental health messages.
	Online risks must be managed more effectively, and advertisements with hyperlinks to support services must be displayed whenever users discuss or search for information about harmful behaviour if we are to ensure that people in distress can access useful resources quickly.
	I acknowledge that the Byron review calls for a shared culture of resilience with families, industry, Government and others in the public and third sector all playing their part to reduce the availability of potential harmful material, to restrict access to it by children and to increase children’s resilience. There needs to be a greater understanding of how young people use modern technologies and communications if they are to be engaged in respect of suicide awareness and prevention, and mental health and well-being.
	In conclusion, the causes of suicide are multiple and complex, and they cannot be addressed by any one Government Department working in isolation. Recent years have seen a commitment by Government to deliver suicide prevention strategies throughout the UK, but these must be adequately resourced on a sustainable basis if the progress already made is to be maintained. While we must acknowledge the good work already taking place, there is, of course, always room for improvement, and I believe that efforts must be concentrated on making the internet a safer place for our young people.
	I recognise that this is a particularly complex matter and that the challenges it presents are indeed multiple. None the less, they are challenges that must be overcome, for children have the right to be protected from all forms of abuse, violence and harm. Enhanced internet safety is only part of the solution to the growing problem of suicide and self-harm. Through a co-ordinated approach, we must effectively address the issues impacting on emotional health so that we reach a point where so-called “suicide” sites will no longer be attractive to vulnerable individuals and will be made naturally obsolete or unattractive to view. We need to think innovatively about what more can be done across government and the community to reduce the rate of suicide in the UK.
	I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will deal not only with the issues I have touched on, but with the families of those who have experienced suicide, because they also need help.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making in leading this debate and on the tremendous work he is doing to highlight the issue in this place. He has mentioned the refreshed “Protect Life” strategy, and it is good to know that that strategy is developing under devolution. He may just about remember that I was the Minister with responsibility for health at the time when that was launched in 2006. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, I emphasise and ask him to emphasise how important it is for the families of those with direct experience to be at the core of that strategy because they better understand the issues at stake and can inform us all about the best way forward.

William McCrea: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I wish to be helpful to the Chamber, and point out that Members are meant to speak through the Chair rather than to the individual Members concerned. I know that
	some Members have not been on the Back Benches for a while, but I hope that they are back into the swing of being in opposition and will remember to speak through the Chair.

William McCrea: I concur with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). I can honestly say that there was no better person than himself to introduce and bring in this sort of measure from the beginning. He certainly did sterling work on it, and we in Northern Ireland appreciate what he did, and want to carry it forward to the next step. Thus families in their grief, bewilderment and loss need help and should be at the very heart of whatever next step is taken. The emphasis on suicide prevention must remain, for as the Stamp Out Suicide! website plainly notes:
	“once a suicide is completed, very sadly, there is no cure.”

Norman Lamb: I shall try to behave, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to address the Chair, as you rightly instructed us to do.
	We in the House of Commons frequently find ourselves at loggerheads, and common ground is often hard to come by, but we unite—as a Parliament and as a country—in lamenting the number of people who die by suicide every year. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and his colleagues for selecting this issue for debate, because it is so easy to go for other less difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service by choosing this subject and giving it a proper airing so that we can debate it and demonstrate to the country that we are focusing on things that matter a great deal. I thank him genuinely for that.
	I noted what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said about the importance of families and their role. As he said, it is important to listen to them, to understand their perspective, and to recognise what they go through. Once someone has taken his or her own life, the impact of that lost life lasts with the family for the rest of their lives. We owe it to families to listen to them, and to do better in preventing suicide.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim produced the shocking statistic that 1 million lives are lost globally, and told us that in many countries young people are now the highest-risk group. He also told us that males are more susceptible to suicide—both middle-aged and young men—and that suicide is the biggest single killer of men under the age of 35. That in itself is deeply concerning. We need to stop and think about the turmoil that is often associated with individuals in the lead-up to the moment when they make their decision. We have a responsibility to do all we can to address that.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of recognising the prevalence of self-harm and the disturbing trends that we are seeing. That is of real concern, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is a serious problem in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) wondered whether it was sometimes a post-conflict issue. I know that a lot of work has been done in relation to post-traumatic stress following conflict, wherever it takes place in the world, and the risk that young men and young women may
	take their own lives as a result. I join others in paying tribute to organisations such as the Samaritans and Papyrus for their work in helping people at moments of real risk.

Simon Hughes: I think it is important to provide signposting, so that young people, from secondary school onwards, know where they can go for help. It should not necessarily lead to teachers, family or pastoral care workers, because young people may not want to share their problems with them, especially when the first signs of self-harm appear. We should also do much more to ensure that university health services provide cognitive behavioural therapies and similar services much more quickly than many are able to at present, because the lack of such services has been a real cause of crisis, tension and, indeed, increased suicide risk.

Norman Lamb: One of the things that I am determined to do while I am in this job is give mental health services, and access to them, the real priority that they deserve. Our first mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board gives mental health a much higher priority than it has ever had before. In establishing the principle of parity of esteem, we have asked the board to pay particular attention to access to mental health services in order to ensure that people with those problems have the rights of access that people with physical health problems have had for some time. Every life taken by suicide is one too many.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so soon after the first. He has rightly paid tribute to the work of the Samaritans, who undoubtedly prevent a huge number of people from taking their own lives and who do tremendous work in Northern Ireland. What public funding do groups such as the Samaritans, who do such tremendous work, receive from the Government?

Norman Lamb: I cannot give the hon. Lady precise figures here and now, but I will write to her and make sure she gets a full response to that legitimate point.
	This debate serves as a timely reminder that suicide continues to be a major public health issue, particularly at a time of economic and employment uncertainty. The suicide rate in England is relatively low on international comparisons, and good progress has been made in reducing the rate in England over the past 10 years. That is something to be proud of, but it must not be the end of the struggle. We must be vigilant. About 4,500 people took their own lives in England alone in 2011, an increase on the previous year of about 6%. Although the three-year average suicide rate has remained steady since 2005-07, the rise in the number of people dying by suicide in 2011 is deeply worrying.
	We know that suicide rates vary across the UK, and the hon. Member for South Antrim made the point that the suicide rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in England. In fact, it is the highest in the United Kingdom, and Scotland and Wales also have their own very real challenges. The coalition Government are working with the devolved Administrations to share evidence on suicide prevention and effective interventions. Suicide is still a major taboo. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the importance of our collectively speaking up about the
	subject. The way to reduce the number of suicides is not to comply with that taboo and keep it under wraps; on the contrary, we must tackle the problem and the surrounding issues head-on.
	We published a new suicide prevention strategy for England in September last year. It was written to help to reduce the suicide rate and it prioritises the importance of supporting families, so that those who are worried about a loved one know where to go for help, and supporting those who are bereaved as a result of suicide. They must receive help. There are excellent organisations such as Cruse Bereavement Care—I should declare an interest as my wife works for it—that provide support for people who are bereaved.
	The strategy is backed up by up to £1.5 million for research, and it highlights the importance of helping the groups at highest risk of suicide by targeting interventions in the right way and at the right time. In-patient services are getting better at that. The most recent national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide shows that the long-term downward trend in patient suicides continues.
	Giving greater priority to mental health services is also critical. We are championing parity of esteem for physical and mental health, and through our improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—schemes we are treating more people than ever before for mental health problems. Through the Government’s NHS mandate, we have gone much further than ever before in emphasising the priority the NHS must give to mental health. The mandate also makes specific reference to the need for mental health services to seek to reduce the suicide rate among users of their services, although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): we must also be acutely aware that many people—I think she gave the figure of 75%—who take their own lives are not known to the statutory services. It is very important that the statutory services do everything they can, but that is not the whole problem; there is a very significant issue beyond that.
	We also need to make sure there is enough information about treatment and support, and that it is freely available to those who need it, including those who are suffering bereavement following a suicide. A lot of that planning and work will happen locally, with local agencies deciding on how best to reduce the suicide rate and support families. Our recent strategy is not an instruction manual; it is more a tool to support local agencies in working out what is needed.
	Suicide prevention will also be a priority for the new public health system. The public health outcomes framework has the suicide rate as an indicator. That is a horrible piece of jargon, but this project addresses what outcomes and results the whole system is trying to achieve, and one of them is the need to reduce the suicide rate. A shared indicator with the NHS outcomes framework also focuses on reducing the number of premature deaths of people with serious mental illness—such deaths also, of course, include suicides.
	We are tackling stigma in relation to mental health, which the hon. Member for South Antrim rightly mentioned, with the brilliant Time to Change programme led by the charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, which is designed to reduce stigma and break isolation. A few months ago, we had a brilliant debate in this House when Members talked about their own experiences
	of mental health. That, in itself, was very important in bringing the issue out into the open and recognising that successful people, as well as many others, suffer from mental health problems and it is nothing to be ashamed of.
	Children and young people have an important place in the new suicide prevention strategy. The suicide rate among teenagers is below that in the overall population, but that does not mean it is not a problem. For example, suicide is still the most common cause of death in young men, as I mentioned earlier. In addition, about half of mental health problems begin to emerge by the age of 14.

Bob Stewart: I apologise for intervening, as the Minister was perhaps going on to deal with this matter. We have now heard four or five times that the level of suicide among young men is much higher than that among young women, but nobody has said why that might be. Is there an answer to that question?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would not want to indulge in cheap speculation about that. The statistics are clear on the prevalence of suicide among young men and clear that it is significantly higher than among young women. It is important that we carry out the research, which is why the Government have also committed to that as well; it is so that we gain a better understanding.

Madeleine Moon: The Minister will be aware that research suggests that women and young girls are less vulnerable to suicide because they are help seekers, whereas young men are not and they will not articulate the problems they are facing. That is the major difference. Women and girls will go to their friends and talk about their problems, whereas men bottle things up so that they grow and grow and they can no longer manage them.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. What she says makes sense and I am most grateful to her for coming to my rescue on that—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Norman Lamb: More people are coming to my rescue.

Simon Hughes: I am always ready to try to rescue, but on this occasion that was not necessary. If sufficient research does not exist on the extent to which people know where to access services, it would be really helpful if the Minister worked with local government and the health and wellbeing boards to try to ensure that such research was carried out. I have a strong feeling that lots of young people, including young men, do not yet know where to go. If they did know, there would be a much better chance that they would do something about their problems and not keep them all inside, with the worst consequences.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right to say that ensuring that youngsters know exactly where to go to find help is really important. Gaining a better understanding of that must be a priority.

Nigel Dodds: I wish to support the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) a moment ago about the reasons why
	suicide is more prevalent among men. It was backed up for me by a recent piece of work carried out in my constituency that showed it is much more difficult to get young and middle-aged men to visit a GP or confide in someone about their health problems than to get women to do the same. The work showed exactly the same problem: a lack of willingness to seek out help early enough. That is a major problem and it needs to be dealt with by more education and information, particularly for young men.

Norman Lamb: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that constructive intervention, and he is absolutely right.
	The suicide prevention strategy also recognises that the media have a significant influence on what children do and think. As well as promoting responsible reporting in the media, the strategy emphasises the importance of working with the industry to tackle websites that encourage suicide. That is, in a sense, at the heart of the motion and of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim.
	Misuse of the internet to encourage vulnerable people to take their own lives is utterly wrong. It is deeply worrying that young people can easily be exposed to such pernicious material, but we should not dismiss the internet as a source only of harmful material. It also provides an opportunity to reach out to vulnerable people who might otherwise refuse support or information, including those young men who might not come forward. It is worth remembering that when used well the internet can be an incredibly valuable way of helping vulnerable people.
	Only last week, I convened a meeting bringing together internet security companies, charities and Departments to explore how to protect children and young people from harmful suicide-related internet content. The industry representatives at the meeting told me about some of the good work they are already doing. For instance, McAfee informed me that it has valuable learning to share from its work with the Australian Government on an online safety campaign in schools. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will be interested to hear about that. McAfee has campaigned to get the message out to schools in Australia so that youngsters have information about how to seek help. There is a lot we can learn from that.
	At that meeting—

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it was terribly rude of me to interrupt and I apologise. Will he reassure us that when he convened that critical meeting with those who provide internet services, representatives from the devolved Administrations and from the Health Departments in Northern Ireland and Scotland were invited to attend? When we debate the United Kingdom, even though we have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland I like to know, as someone who feels passionately about remaining in the United Kingdom, that we have joined-up government.

Norman Lamb: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Those representatives were not invited to the meeting, but let me make a clear commitment that we will work with the devolved Administrations. I mentioned that earlier and it is in all our interests that we tackle the problem together.
	At that meeting, I urged the security companies, such as McAfee and Symantec, to work collaboratively with interest groups who were present, such as Samaritans and BeatBullying, and internet service providers to sign up to a concordat that would help to speed up the process for reporting harmful content and the blocking of harmful websites. They gave me positive assurances that they would explore such a concordat, and in turn we as a Government would be willing to facilitate and support such an initiative however we can.
	The UK Council for Child Internet Safety is already making parental controls more accessible so that children can access less harmful content. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is the Minister responsible for children and families, will explain more about the work his Department has been doing when he sums up.
	As I said at the outset, this is one of the issues that unite us all.

Tracey Crouch: I thank the Minister for giving way, as he has been very generous in doing so. We have heard that there are a host of reasons why people are driven to suicide, one of which is alcohol dependency. Is the suicide prevention strategy working alongside the alcohol strategy so that there is a holistic, joined-up approach to dealing with some of these complex issues?

Norman Lamb: Yes, very much so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. In each area in England, the health and wellbeing boards will be able to co-ordinate all that work. In considering their strategic needs assessments, they will be able to identify issues relating to suicide and alcohol and drug dependency.
	I hope that I have satisfied the House that the Government take suicide extremely seriously indeed and that we are taking real action to help. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Antrim for bringing the matter to the House’s attention.

Madeleine Moon: I add my congratulations to those given to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on calling for this debate, along with his colleagues.
	This is one of the few opportunities to address this important issue in the Chamber. There have been Adjournment debates and Westminster Hall debates, but a full Chamber debate is not a natural occurrence for this subject, so I very much welcome it. I begin with a quote from a recent inquiry undertaken by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. Someone working on suicide prevention in England said:
	“So when you are having a discussion”—
	as we are today—
	“about what does suicide mean, and the numbers are very small compared to smoking or obesity, what is this about, well our deaths by suicide show…the ultimate loss of hope, the ultimate loss of meaning of purpose, yet they are an indicator. They may be small numbers, but they have a very big ripple impact and they are an indicator of what is happening further down that pyramid.”
	This debate, as has been said, is timely, because of the publication of statistics by the Office for National Statistics which show that there has been an increase in suicides in the United Kingdom. In 2011, there were 6,045 suicides—an increase of 7.8% on the previous year. Across the United Kingdom, suicides have increased at different levels. In Wales last year, there was an 18.4% increase, and in Scotland, a 13.8% increase. However, Scotland has changed the data on which it bases its statistics, and it argues that if it had not changed statistical gathering information and the classification of deaths by alcohol, there would have been a small decrease.
	In Northern Ireland, the figure is down slightly by 7.7%, from 313 to 289 deaths from suicide, but in 2009, it was as low as 260, so over that period there was an increase. In England, however, there is a 7.4% increase, but the figure varies across the country. In the south-east, it is 6%, but in the north-west, it is 9.3%, which will be of particular interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The highest risk group—and there has been a lot of talk about young people, particularly young men—is men aged 30 to 44, with 23.5 deaths per 100,000. The 45 to 59 age group has the highest rate of suicides among women, and there is also an increase in deaths for men in that group.
	When the ONS says there has been a significant increase, it means that we can be 95% confident that the increase has occurred because of an underlying reason, and not just by chance. Our job is to look at that underlying reason. What is driving these increases?

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Lady agree that when Members and others deal with families who are trying to come to terms with a suicide, very often there is a lack of help when those families try to identify within the family circle a behavioural change and problem that led up to the suicide? Sometimes they are racked with guilt because they cannot identify the problems that ultimately led to the suicide. Perhaps that is where attention and resource can be deployed.

Madeleine Moon: I apologise to the House. I have lost a contact lens, and I have to wear spectacles. I cannot read my papers when I am wearing them, and I cannot see all hon. Members in the Chamber when I take them off. If I am not wearing them, hon. Members must alert me if they wish to intervene.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Families tear themselves apart over the question of why. They try to analyse behaviour, particularly in the weeks leading up to the death, to seek an understanding of it. Only if there is a suicide autopsy can one begin to look at the reasons behind a death. That is a complicated procedure that cannot be carried out for every death, but it can give some understanding of the wider reasons behind such deaths. I totally agree that the distress for families as to why the suicide has happened is horrific.
	That is why the research to which we have access is important. Haw, Hawton, Gunnell and Platt found that the economic recession had a clear impact on suicide. However, the increase in the suicide rate may be offset by adequate welfare benefits; their finding was very clear on that. Other measures likely to reduce the impact of recession included targeted intervention for the
	unemployed and membership of social organisations. They found that responsible media reporting was also important. Research at the university of Liverpool found that more than 1,000 people took their own lives during the 2008-10 economic recession in the United Kingdom.
	There are ways in which we can begin to look at some of the problems that are staring us in the face and that may be causing some of the increase that is becoming apparent. Suicides began to rise in the UK in 2008, following 20 years of decline. Figures rose almost 8% among men and 9% among women in 2008, compared with 2007. The figures reflect the increased effect of the recession. I want to reiterate that research has found that there are risks associated with failure to provide adequate welfare benefits. There are currently high levels of distress and hopelessness caused by the changes in benefit that are about to come into force.

Jim Shannon: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the Prince’s Trust recently released figures which show that one in four of those who are in work are almost always or very often depressed. Among those who are unemployed the rate rises as high as 50%. Does she feel there should be a focus on young people, who are suffering more than most? Her colleague—I cannot remember his constituency—had an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on that very topic and he highlighted the issue as well.

Madeleine Moon: The figures show that the increased number of deaths are among an older group of men, largely those who have not experienced unemployment before, who find unemployment very difficult to deal with and who despair about being able to maintain their family lifestyle, pay their bills and see a future where they can again be economically successful. We must be careful that those who are unemployed and who need to survive on benefits for however short a period are not made to feel failures, a burden on the state or pariahs in our society.
	I know that Ministers will probably argue that the Government are doing wonderful things in relation to benefits but the Office for National Statistic figures highlight a very worrying trend. I hope there will be discussions between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health to highlight the importance of Jobcentre Plus staff in particular being aware of claimants coming in who may well be suffering from depression and exhibiting signs of hopelessness and despair, and being able to take suitable preventive action.
	Although the numbers are small compared with cancer, heart disease and dementia, suicide is a reflection of the overall health of a country and a community, and the ripple effects on the health of those impacted by it are very great. Other Members have spoken about the impact on families, but communities, schools and workplaces are also affected. There is an impact on people who have known the individual and people who identify themselves with that individual, which is where the risk is most dangerous.

Geraint Davies: May I return to my hon. Friend’s point about the age profile of recent suicide victims? In going through the research, has she found that, in particular, men of a certain age, perhaps in their late 40s or early 50s, who have young
	children and who suddenly and unexpectedly lose their job, lose their self-esteem and cannot reposition themselves in what has traditionally been the caring-for-children role in the family setting? Does she think that there is a role for providing support to such people in regaining their self-esteem and repositioning themselves in order to get across to them that they have value in their new position, even if they do not get back their previous one, and to get them back on to a positive track rather than a downward spiral towards possible suicide?

Madeleine Moon: My hon. Friend asks a complicated question. The research that I have looked at has considered the impact of suicide figures in recessions, not only in the UK but across the world, and it goes back in time to look at the great depression and recession that we had in the 1930s. As far as I am aware, no work has been done, certainly by that research group, on the impact on men’s self-esteem in assuming a caring role and responsibility within the family. Should I come across it, I will certainly pass it his way.
	Last year, the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, which I chair, considered a number of issues that we have to address in relation to suicide. Every meeting brings the best authorities that we can find into the corridors of Westminster to explain and talk about the work that they are doing.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent work that she does in her all-party group. Has it looked into the specific issue of suicide in Her Majesty’s prisons and young offender institutions? Coming from a legal background, as I do, I am aware of that issue and wonder whether she has any observations to make about it.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have not yet looked at that issue, but I pay close attention to it because I have Parc prison in my constituency. I hope at some point to secure an Adjournment debate on work that people are doing there on the Invisible Walls project, which builds and re-establishes links between prisoners and their families—their partners and children—because the best sense of rehabilitation that can be given to someone serving a sentence is the feeling that there is hope for a family life once they leave prison. That extremely important work is one of the ways we could focus on improving outcomes for people once they leave prison.

Bob Stewart: I suspect that the most vulnerable people are those who leave prison without a place to go to, in much the same way as, in my experience, soldiers who leave the armed forces go back to nothing if they have no family. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must take a great deal of interest in the people who have nothing, when they have a break from routine, such as leaving prison or the armed forces?

Madeleine Moon: The Ministry of Defence commissioned a study by Dr Nav Kapur of Manchester university on suicide in the armed forces. He found that the largest number of suicides were by young people leaving the armed forces, usually without having completed their basic training or shortly after they had passed it. Further research is needed to confirm this, but the indications were that there was a feeling of hopelessness with regard to attempts to build a family in the armed forces,
	that a sense of success and of identity had been lost, and that that was perhaps one of the motivations towards suicide. Additional funding is needed for that research to be completed, but that was the outcome of the best study that I have seen so far of suicide in the armed forces.
	The all-party group has discussed how coroners record suicide and the importance of accurate suicide reporting. I cannot stress that enough. One of the problems is narrative verdicts, which were introduced as an addition to a statutory verdict. If someone died in the custody of the Crown, for example, they allowed for a narrative of that death to teach lessons about how it had happened. Instead, however, they have replaced the verdict and become a verdict in their own right. Often, the death of someone who takes their own life by tying a ligature around their neck is not recorded as a suicide, because the appropriate word has not been used. The Ministry of Justice needs to work on this area. I know that it is doing so and I hope to meet the chief coroner soon to see how we can make progress.

Mark Durkan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madeleine Moon: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, who regularly attends the all-party group, for which I thank him.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The number of narrative verdicts in England is growing. One of the ways in which they are avoided in Northern Ireland is the decision taken five years ago by the coroners service not to hold inquests on suicides, but to just record them and not put the families through an inquest unless the public interest or another family requirement demands it. That means that there has been more sensitivity than the false sensitivity accorded to narrative verdicts, which then lead to flawed statistics.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware of that development in Northern Ireland, and I would like to spend some time examining it. The root trauma for many families who have experienced such a death is sometimes renewed, along with the publicity, up to a year later, which makes it very difficult for them to cope and which sets them back in the progress that they have made in grieving. Many have found it extremely difficult, so I will look at the information he provides, for which I thank him.
	The all-party group has looked at the cross-Government strategy to prevent suicide in England. I will come back to that later, because it is a most important issue. We have also looked at suicide and bereavement. We talked to a number of families who have been bereaved by suicide and every one of them mentioned the importance of a Department of Health document called, “Help is at Hand”. Sadly, many Members do not know about this fantastic resource; it is not appropriately distributed and many families never get access to it. We have to find a way of getting that booklet out to people. The Welsh Assembly is looking to translate it and produce a Welsh language edition for Wales. We are also considering whether coroners and the police force would be appropriate groups to distribute that information.
	We have also looked at the impact of police investigations. As Members will be aware, when a sudden death is reported, the police investigate initially under the murder manual. Families are therefore further traumatised by the feeling that they are under suspicion for the death. Once it is decided that it is a suicide, the police sometimes walk away and the family are left with no help or support and no sense of where they are supposed to go.
	A suicide death is a lonely death because people stay away; they do not know what to say or how to approach the family. Often, the support that families desperately need is not there. That isolation and lack of information add to the risk of further suicides. It is important that people have ongoing support from within their community and from statutory services to see them through the grieving process.
	We have also looked at the use of sport to reach out to young men. This point refers back to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about the deaths of young men. It is important to give young men role models who have had difficulties in their life and who have contemplated suicide, despite success. Sports personalities have been particularly effective. We spoke with Ernie Benbow from State of Mind Rugby and Greg Burgess, the Choose Life co-ordinator for north Lancashire. They demonstrated how successful the use of sportsmen had been.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Madeleine Moon: I am sure that I can see a hand gesturing at me. I will give way.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady’s eyesight is better than she thinks. Does she agree that TV soaps can play a key role in highlighting the issue of suicide and prevent viewers from committing suicide?

Madeleine Moon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is a risk in how suicide scenes are written in soaps. There have been incidents in which a death by suicide in a soap opera has led to copycats and social contagion. The writing must be extremely careful. I know that many soap opera writers take their responsibility extremely seriously because they are aware of that risk.
	There has been much talk about recipe websites. This week is internet safety week. It is extremely important that every Member of this House goes into schools in their area and talks to young people about staying safe on the internet. I went to Bryntirion junior school in my constituency last week and I asked a group of youngsters how many of them had ever received offensive material on the internet and how many of them had felt frightened, bullied or scared by what they saw. Every hand in the class went up. That is a world that we all escaped, but it is our duty to build awareness and protection in that world.
	The work of the Samaritans is second to none. I want to highlight the work that it has done with British Transport police and Network Rail on the prevention of suicide on the railways. They have identified areas that have particular problems and trained their staff to be highly vigilant. They now provide support to people who enter their railway stations if they feel that there is a risk. That is a fantastic move forward.
	I want to consider briefly the impact that the health and social care changes will have on the new suicide prevention plan for England. The all-party group carried out an inquiry into that. We issued a call for evidence that went out to all local authorities and directors of public health, via primary care trusts, local authorities and PCT clusters. That was followed by four evidence sessions in which we took evidence from representatives of the devolved nations, six areas of England and the voluntary sector.
	The report concluded that the future of local suicide prevention plans in England depends on leadership and local champions, the identification of suicide prevention as a priority, availability of resources, and the long-term survival of suicide prevention groups already in place. The future of local suicide prevention plans in England is fragile and often relies on committed and dedicated individuals. That such plans are not a statutory requirement of the new national suicide prevention strategy is a major barrier to their survival, and that is particularly true when entering a time of restricted spending within local authorities. If something is not a statutory responsibility, often it will be bypassed or shelved.
	There is no guarantee that health and wellbeing boards will address suicide prevention, or that existing plans will survive or be replaced. What will happen in areas where there is no suicide prevention plan and no history of taking an interest in the issue? In areas with no local champion, suicide prevention might be overlooked completely. We are talking about a suicide prevention postcode lottery, which is, in part, reflected in figures that show increases in suicide, differentiated across the United Kingdom.
	There is no formal mechanism in the suicide prevention plan for England for suicide prevention groups to report directly to health and wellbeing boards. Without such a link, suicide prevention might not reach the agencies, and groups will be working in isolation, undermining their value and jeopardising their future. Engagement with the police, GPs and coroners is vital, yet in many areas such engagement is poor, patchy and inconsistent. Self-harm prevention and specialist bereavement services remain poor in many areas of the country.
	Evidence from Northern Ireland demonstrates the importance of involving community organisations and the voluntary sector in suicide prevention. The existence of suicide prevention implementation groups in every locality was critical to Northern Ireland’s success and ensures that suicide prevention is not left to chance. The leadership at Government level highlighted by the hon. Member for South Antrim is also critical. Northern Ireland is making a difference.
	In Wales, sadly, ministerial statements allocating responsibility for suicide planning were not published, and mandates were passed to local authorities but not implemented. That highlights the importance of national leadership, which comes up time and again in ensuring consistent implementation and showing what can result where no suicide prevention plan is in place. My local authority in Bridgend, however, is an exemplar of best practice and best planning. It learned a salutary lesson of the importance of such planning, which it now does excellently.
	Evidence from Scotland highlighted the strength of a co-ordinated national approach to implementation—the Choose Life strategy—with the appointment of a
	co-ordinator in every local authority together with national funding and national leadership. The Minister of State, Department of Health, kindly gave an address at the launch of the report by the all-party group on suicide and self harm prevention, and has agreed to respond to that on behalf of the Government.
	Health and wellbeing boards need direction because otherwise we will end up with a hotchpotch of disorganised and unconnected polices, many of which have no evidence base. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is commissioning guidance for commissioners of self-harm services, and perhaps the Department of Health could look at doing the same for suicide prevention.
	Workers in the field of suicide prevention are dedicated and committed, but isolated. Our inquiries showed the need to share best practice nationally, and in the near future we hope to hold a conference in House of Commons to facilitate networking so best practice can be shared and so that we do not constantly expect people to reinvent the wheel. We will go back and look later at the effect of the suicide prevention plan for England and the impact of the reorganisation in England.
	I mentioned briefly the importance of not linking suicide just to mental health services. The Appleby report of 1999 suggested that 75% of those who commit suicide are not known to services. That is important. We must not always look for a mental health link. If we do so, we will neglect to provide services that address a large number of people who take their own lives.
	The debate is important. Suicide reflects on society as a whole. It can affect any hon. Member and any family. As the hon. Member for South Antrim has said, it can affect people whether they are rich, poor, successful, young or old. The sad tragedy that unites them all is that they are lives wasted, and lives we should set out to save.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The debate will finish at 5.55 pm and the two Front Benchers still have their winding-up speeches to make. Will hon. Members therefore be mindful when they are making their contributions so we can get everybody in?

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and all Democratic Unionist party Members for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. I am sure they were tempted to debate many other issues, but it is important that we discuss suicide prevention, which is a crucial but difficult issue.
	Yesterday, I spoke of some of the most difficult times in my life. I was lucky to have the support of a loving family and great friends, but many unfortunately do not have that. Before being elected, I worked in the hospice movement. In that time, I got to know a lot of the patients well, and, sadly, death became a norm—I did not want to use that word, but I am sure hon. Members understand what I am getting at. Bereavement is always difficult, but suicide bereavement is a different type of bereavement altogether.
	Sadly, I say that from personal experience. When I was in the sixth form, I remember vividly walking in and a friend saying to me, “Have you heard about that boy?”—I will not mention his name. He had taken his own life because he had been bullied at school. I remember all the students sitting in the common room in complete and utter shock. All I could think about were the questions going around in my head. What could I have done? Why did I not spot that he was in that difficult place? If I am honest, those questions still haunt me today. In more recent times—since I have been elected as a Member of Parliament—there was the very sad case in my constituency of a father who killed his entire family and then himself.
	The suicides I have seen and experienced have had a tremendous effect on the people who are left behind. That is why the debate is important, but more importantly we should act and not just talk about suicide. We must also start right at the beginning and change people’s attitudes. How many times have hon. Members been on a train that has been delayed because somebody has taken their life, and the instinct of some passengers is to moan about the delay, forgetting that somebody has lost their life?
	Hon. Members have spoken a lot about attitudes to mental health. I am very proud of the fact that a lot of work has been done in the Chamber to address that. It is a good start to try and take away that stigma. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who have spoken openly about their own personal battles. As hon. Members have said, however, suicide is a much wider subject than just mental health; it can be about finance, careers or family breakdown. It is important that we address all those issues, which is why I welcome the fact that the suicide prevention strategy is in place. It is important that the strategy is not just a piece of paper; it has to be backed up by action, and it is good to see that happening. Crucially, it is partly about identifying the risks.

Andrew Stephenson: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. In January, suicide-proof fencing was installed at a multi-storey car park in Nelson in my constituency, from which eight people have died in the past 10 years and a further 18 people have had to be talked down by police. I raised this issue on the Floor of the House in October 2010 in an Adjournment debate led by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), yet it still took the car park owners years to act. In addition to what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that businesses have a key role to play in identifying risks?

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: we need to do everything we can—talking to individuals themselves or lessening the risks—to identify those areas. A lot of work has been done in the prison system to try to improve cells to reduce risks. Businesses also have an important role to play.
	It is important that the strategy targets specific groups who we know may be vulnerable. Targeting young people will be important, because we want to change attitudes
	in the future. We also have to look at why so many young men are committing suicide. We have been talking about mental health, but let us face it: men are not very good at talking, and that is part of the problem. As we move into the digital age and we all spend so much time on our computers, being used to talking with others will lessen over time. I fear that we will have a generation who will be even worse than the current one in talking about their problems.
	Improving access to “talking therapies”, the strategy’s four-year plan, and expanding it to all ages and different groups, is important. From my own experience, I know that we need to ensure that there is as much work on school intervention as possible to deal with bullying and violence. We must allow people to talk about the threats they feel, whether they are sexual abuse or bullying at home. We also have to remove barriers for people who are disabled, or who have mental health or other long-term conditions. We want to make them feel that they can play a full role in our society and do not become isolated.
	Areas that require emphasis have been highlighted by a constituent of mine. I pay tribute to Mike Bush. He and I are unlikely friends. He describes himself as “red socialist”, but he and I have become very good friends and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He has done tremendous work in this field and is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self harm prevention. On many occasions, he has highlighted the importance of working with bereaved families. I welcome the fact that the strategy gives greater prominence to measures that support those families; being there and helping them to cope with a family member whom they are worried might commit suicide, and helping them cope with the aftermath of someone who has committed suicide.
	Getting better information through the research that is being offered can only be a good thing, but the emphasis must be on support, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgend that we need to ensure good national provision. We need to ensure that suicide prevention measures are available in every part of our country. In particular, bereavement support needs a suicide angle to it, because it really is very different. In my time at the hospice, I saw how fragmented bereavement services were around the country, but specific suicide bereavement support is even more fragmented.
	I hope that as the strategy develops we will continue to work with the many wonderful organisations we have in this country, many of which have been mentioned today, such as the Samaritans. The APPG is a great start, bringing together a coalition of organisations with a wealth of experience, but it is also important that we listen to family groups that have been through this dreadful experience. What makes Martin House children’s hospice such a wonderful organisation is that it is parent-led. The parents describe the care they need, and that is why it can offer such wonderful support. In the same way, the best strategy for dealing with suicide will come from those families who have experienced it.
	We need action on cyber-bullying. Bullying has existed in schools for many years, but it has taken on a different form now. People can be bullied at school, but when they get home it continues through the social networking sites and the computers in their bedrooms. In a sense, these children and young people are suffering
	from a silent bully. The suicide websites have been touched on. We must do more to close them down completely.
	I hope that we can offer further training for organisations and—perhaps—the police in helping them to deliver that bad news. I have had several constituents tell me that they almost felt sorry for the police officer delivering the news because it was so difficult. It is important that these organisations be aware of the wealth of information out there. I am glad that the “Help is at Hand” document has been mentioned, because it is not used enough.
	In conclusion, suicide is tragic in every sense: the loneliness of the person doing it, the long bereavement for those left behind, the guilt they suffer for years after and the great risk that they themselves might go on to commit suicide. It is crucial that we face this risk. This debate is just the start: let us now address and act on it.

Nigel Dodds: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who spoke about the impact that suicide can have. He mentioned a memory of his school days. In preparing for this debate, I, too, reflected on my first acquaintance with suicide. At school one day, we discovered that a chap in my class in the third year had died by suicide. I experienced feelings of absolute bewilderment and shock that someone who had been with us only the previous day—playing a normal role in school and taking part in normal activities—was gone from us. I remember racking my brains and feeling totally bewildered. What had caused it? Were we missing something? That vivid memory, which will never leave me, had an enormous impact on me.
	Just today, a friend of mine related to me the sad news of the death by suicide over night of a mutual acquaintance, and again those feelings of shock and bewilderment came back. I am sure that every hon. Member can relate to this issue in some shape or form. I know that some have experienced personal loss through death by suicide. It is very painful, but it is right that we talk about it, so I am glad of this opportunity to say a few words. Only by highlighting this issue of suicide and talking about its causes and what prompts people to take their own lives can we in some way help others not to go down this path. We need to talk about what we can do in government and society and through working with voluntary community groups to help these vulnerable people.
	I want to talk from my perspective as the Member for Belfast North, which has been mentioned a number of times. It has one of the highest suicide rates of any part of the United Kingdom, with 25.2 deaths per 100,000 in the period 2006 to 2011. In the last five-year period for which we have figures, from 2007, that figure crept up to 25.9 per 100,000. As has been said, only the constituency of Belfast West has a higher rate. Those rates are high for Northern Ireland, which has high rates compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I therefore know about this issue from my constituency surgeries, as well as from meetings with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, from delegations that I have led of families bereaved by suicide and from my work with groups such as PIPS, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) mentioned—I commend
	him on his excellent speech in introducing this debate—and others that do such tremendous work in Belfast North. They include Lighthouse, FASA—the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse—and many other charities and Churches.
	Those working in such organisations do enormously dedicated work in difficult circumstances, often volunteering and bearing a great emotional burden every day, as they cope with young people, middle-aged people and older people who are going through difficult times, as well as counselling and helping in a practical way families who have been bereaved. This work takes a great toll on the volunteers and others working in such organisations. I commend them publicly for the work they do on behalf of us all.

Kevan Jones: I have similar organisations in my constituency doing the kind of work the right hon. Gentleman describes. One of the questions they are asked by many relatives is: “What did we do wrong?”, which is a very difficult issue to deal with.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I speak to people working in those organisations, I am told that this issue comes up time and time again. It is very difficult to give answers to families who are struggling to cope with the nature of the passing of their loved one. Often it is hard to find any answer that can satisfy—it is just not possible to do that—but in the long run, the work these organisations do provides enormous consolation, help and support. The work of the Samaritans has been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned Papyrus, and there are many, many others. It is right to put on record our tremendous debt to such organisations and the people who do such tremendous work.
	The new suicide prevention strategy, which was launched in September 2012 here in England and Wales, is excellent. The chair of the advisory group, Professor Appleby, who has been mentioned, has said:
	“Suicide does not have one cause—many factors combine to produce an individual tragedy.”
	Therefore,
	“Prevention too must be broad—communities, families and front-line services all have a vital role.”
	That is absolutely right, and that is why our motion today talks about government, community and society—all of us—working together to try to prevent suicide. The Samaritans chief executive, Catherine Johnstone, has made an important point—I suppose this sums up what we are trying to get at today—which is that
	“suicide can be prevented by making sure people get support when they need it, how they need it and where they need it.”
	We know that that is very difficult and complicated to put into practice, because as has been said—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned this and the Minister reiterated it—75% of those who die by suicide were not known by, or in contact with, social services. This is not just a simple matter of saying that it is about people who are having mental health problems and who are known to the various agencies; that is often not the case at all.
	As I have said, we have a particular problem in Northern Ireland, where death by suicide has gone up by 100% in less than 15 years. Some 300 people each year are dying by suicide in the Province, with men three times more likely to die in that way than females. I shall discuss some of the reasons for men being more prone to taking their lives and for their reticence in coming forward.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked the Minister a question about the amount of money that was being spent. I am glad to say that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland has spent £32 million over the past six years on suicide prevention under the Protect Life strategy. That money has been extremely helpful, and it has been well spent on helping some of the groups that I have mentioned.
	Of course, money can do only so much, because of the broad range of reasons that lie behind suicide. I will not go over all the issues that have been mentioned, but I will deal with one or two of them. As well as social isolation, there is the problem of drug misuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned. In Rathcool and elsewhere in my constituency, good work is being done to try to reach young people with drug problems and to counter those problems. We are finding that a lot of young men—again, it is particularly young men—who get themselves into that situation end up attempting to commit suicide or actually dying by suicide. Problems with alcohol abuse are also a factor.
	I also want to draw attention to a piece of research recently carried out by Mike Tomlinson of the school of sociology at Queen’s university. The key finding of his study entitled “War, peace and suicide: the case of Northern Ireland” was that
	“the cohort of children and young people who grew up in the worst years of violence…have the highest and most rapidly increasing suicide rates”.
	Those generations were the most acculturated to division and conflict, and to externalised expressions of aggression. The report continues:
	“The transition to peace means that externalized aggression is no longer socially approved. It becomes internalized instead.”
	My constituency of Belfast North probably suffered more than any other constituency in Northern Ireland—that could be true of Belfast West as well, but I can speak only for my constituency—during the period euphemistically known as the troubles. That was a heinous, horrible period of our history, with its violence, blood-letting, murder and mayhem. Today in Belfast North, and in Belfast West, we are still paying the price for that period of violence and bloodshed. Young men and women are still dying, as are middle-aged men and women, as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Nowadays, they are dying not as a result of murders committed by paramilitaries, but as a direct result of the troubles because, having been brought up in a culture of violence, they cannot cope in this period of relative peace.

Bob Stewart: Is the despair of some of those people accelerated by the fact that they are lonely? Does the fact that they are away from their families and from
	society, for example, act as a catalyst? Does their loneliness gear up the despair that makes them take their own lives?

Nigel Dodds: It is difficult to be too specific, as every individual’s case is different. Undoubtedly, however, one of the biggest factors, particularly in my constituency, is loneliness and isolation, along with drugs and alcohol. That combination, together with the context in which people have grown up, can often become a too powerful and overwhelming set of circumstances with which to cope.
	Particular issues, then, arise in Northern Ireland and my constituency, and they might be different from many cases in England, Wales and Scotland. We have this added problem and pressure of coming out of the period of awful violence that we suffered. Only today, as we look back at the research and work done, do people realise that that period was so awful that we are still living with the consequences. Indeed, people are still dying, even today, as a result of what happened in that period. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about the experience of soldiers—he was right to highlight that—and it applies to people who served in the security forces, too.
	On the issue of how this affects family members, I am thinking particularly of a dear lady who had lost a number of her family members, including two children, to suicide. She told me that she feared for other members of her family because of the increasing prevalence of family members copying what other family members or their close friends had done. The problem is exacerbated not only by sites on the web that encourage suicide but even by Facebook, when an insidious form of peer pressure can be applied.

Madeleine Moon: One big problem is when anniversaries are marked. We must do some work to highlight the risk of anniversaries and the fact that they are not best marked by further deaths. That key piece of work must be undertaken.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and some families have told me that they dread an anniversary coming up. They sometimes sit up for days on end watching over their loved one in case something happens. They are very aware of this problem as anniversaries are approached.
	I want to mention the excellent work done by the integrated services for children and young people programme on the Shankill road in my constituency. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited that project just last week, and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench, has also visited the Spectrum centre in the Shankill, and is aware of the great work done by Nicola Verner and others. Immensely important work is being done trying to help families that have all sorts of problems and needs. Intervention at an early stage is carried out, helping and supporting families as youngsters go through school and into the teenage years. Excellent work is being done by many organisations, much of it helped by Government. We just want to see that work consolidated and, if possible, increased.
	I am conscious that other Members want to contribute, so I shall make my last point. A number of families raised with me the point that when young people go to an accident or emergency centre or to their GP and are concerned about their state of mind and vulnerability, it would be a good idea for them to have somewhere like a place of safety—somewhere they can go to and be put in contact with others who understand what they are going through. They should not just be given a piece of paper as a prescription and told to come back in a week’s time. They need somewhere to go to where they can talk to people; that is vital. I commend the Minister from the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for taking this issue on board.

Madeleine Moon: One of the most helpful developments has been the engagement of the Samaritans in A and E departments. That has really made a difference, especially in self-harm cases. Where the nursing staff might be too busy to give up time, the Samaritans might be able to provide that time and support, which would be an excellent move forward.

Nigel Dodds: I agree. That shows the importance of the excellent work the hon. Lady does as part of the all-party suicide prevention group to share best practice, as there are bound to be lessons we can learn from each other.
	I commend the work that is being done. The Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, has taken a close personal interest in the issue. He recently held a workshop for workers in the community and voluntary sector, and he has also met a number of family support groups. He has tried hard to raise the profile of this issue. It is now taken very seriously across the board in Northern Ireland—by all the political parties, and in the community and voluntary sector—and I think it important for Members to take the opportunity to highlight it here as well. It is one of the biggest problems that we face, certainly in my constituency.
	I commend and thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and all those, in my constituency and elsewhere, who are dedicated to trying to prevent suicide.

Diane Abbott: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on opening the debate so ably. As we have heard, suicide is a particular problem in Northern Ireland, but the problem exists throughout the British Isles. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on their extremely thoughtful contributions.
	It is easy to blanket a debate on suicide in sociology jargon, but the truth is that, while any death in a family is tragic, there is something about suicide that is uniquely tragic. I say that as a mother. It must always leave family members asking themselves, “Is there something that I could have done? Were there signs that I could have noticed?” If suicide is a cry for help, family members must be left asking themselves until the end of their lives, “Why did I not hear that cry in the first place?” There is certainly something peculiarly tragic about suicide.
	Of course, the individual causes of any particular suicide are never straightforward, and they are certainly not amenable to any top-down, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control solution, but I think it is agreed across the House that positive changes in society can make a difference to individual lives, and that we can offer even better support to bereaved families.
	We know that suicide is not just a matter of mental health; however, it is related to mental health issues. I stress that Labour is committed to tackling the stigma attached to mental illness. One in four of us will suffer a mental illness at some point in our lives, and, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the leader of my party, mental illness
	“is the biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age.”
	I should be grateful if Ministers could give me some assurances about mental health spending. According to some indicators, it has been cut in real terms. It is difficult to develop an effective suicide prevention strategy unless the basic spending is there.
	I think that, once we have cut through the sociological jargon, it is clear that the recently rising levels of suicide must be related to the fragmentation of families and societies. Once upon a time, a generation ago, young people could reasonably expect to live in the same street as their mothers and other relatives, or around the corner from them. Young men growing up could reasonably expect a secure job, probably the same as that done by their fathers, and perhaps, in some parts of the country, in the place where many members of their community worked. That increasing fragmentation of families and societies—which is not the fault of any political party or any Government, but is partly due to the nature of the society we live in and to globalisation—must lead to less resilience in families and communities, and must make the issue of suicide more pressing.
	As Members will have heard, the latest suicide figures issued by the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales show an increase in the number of people who have taken their own lives. In particular, there appears to have been a significant increase between 2010 and 2011. As we heard in a number of contributions, historically more men complete suicide attempts. We have also heard interesting contributions about the rise of cyber-bullying triggering suicide. There was a very sad case here in London a few weeks ago. A girl committed suicide because she was very upset about the pictures of herself in a compromising position that were going around via mobile phones and on the internet. We have also heard about the particular problems of suicide in prisons and young offenders institutions.
	Some Members tentatively tried to explore why men are three times more likely than women to take their own lives. In England, for men under 35 suicide is the second most common cause of death, and that is clearly a particular issue in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, suicide rates for young men aged 15 to 24 reached an all-time high. They were at the highest levels since the 1920s. Research by both the British Medical Journal and Mind found that during times of recession the mental health of men is put at particular risk. Mind’s YouGov survey found that almost 40% of men are worried or low at present, and the top three issues playing on their minds are job security, work and money. The report identifies unemployment as increasing the
	risk of suicide among men under 35; young men who took their own lives often did so in their period of worklessness. The chief executive of Mind, Paul Farmer, has said:
	“The recession is clearly having a detrimental impact on the nation’s mental health but men in particular are struggling with the emotional impact. Being a breadwinner is something that is still crucial to the male psyche so if a man loses his job he loses a large part of his identity putting his mental wellbeing in jeopardy. The problem is that too many men wrongly believe that admitting mental distress makes them weak and this kind of self stigma can cost lives.”
	The reasons for committing suicide are complex and often very individual, but the tough economic climate and social factors such as insecurities around work and housing, social isolation and substance misuse are felt particularly strongly by young and middle-aged men. For many middle-aged men, financial problems or redundancy can cause feelings of shame and hopelessness, and can feel impossible to overcome.
	Young men and women of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have not yet been mentioned in our debate. The Stonewall survey found that 50% of LGBT young men and women had attempted self-harm. We need to look at the particular needs of that group, both in relation to mental health and suicide and self-harm.
	The Government have published a strategy called “Preventing suicide in England—a cross-government outcomes strategy to save lives”. It has two key aims: to reduce the suicide rate in England, and to support people better who have been bereaved or affected by suicide. However, the strategy does not make specific recommendations, so in the reorganised system it will be up to clinical commissioning groups and local directors of public health to take action in local areas. I hope this debate will serve to flag up the widespread concern that is felt about this. There is also an issue to do with spending.
	Let me say a few words about Labour’s record on mental health. We made important progress on mental health, with the national service framework early on and then the improving access to psychological therapies programme towards the end of our time in office. Along with cancer and coronary heart disease, we made mental health one of our top three clinical priorities, and by 2007 we were spending more than £1 billion more on mental health services than in 2001, which is a real-terms increase of 25%. However, we believe there was more we could have done, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has taken up this issue strongly. There is no question but that if we have an impact on mental health issues, we also have an impact on the problem of suicide.
	Labour would like to see more work done on internet safety, to bear down both on internet bullying and on sites that, tragically, help young people to find out about suicide and may well encourage copycat suicides. We want to rewrite the NHS constitution to give patients the same legal rights to therapies for treating mental illnesses as they already have for drug treatment and treatments for physical illness. We want to ensure that training for all professional staff in the NHS includes dealing with mental health issues. If we are to meet the mental health challenge, and so meet the challenge of
	dealing with increasing levels of suicide, we have to realise that it is not just an issue for the NHS; we have to bring together public services, such as education and the police, to work with business and employers. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has announced the formation of a taskforce to draw up a strategic plan for mental health, which will be chaired by Stephen O’Brien, a good friend of mine and the chairman of Barts and the London NHS Trust.
	We have heard about the particular problem in Northern Ireland, and it is sad to think that a generation are living almost with a traumatic disorder in the aftermath of the troubles. Again, I congratulate my friends from the Democratic Unionist party on bringing this issue to the Floor of the House in the British Parliament so that we can put it in the wider context and understand the tragedy.
	Every suicide is an individual tragedy. Every person who commits suicide is not amenable to anything that government might do; we will always find that two people—two men or two young women—may be almost exactly the same but when faced with precisely the same circumstances they will choose a different path. There is nothing government can do about that, but we can do something about the therapies and mental health services available. We can do something to support and sustain families. When I say “families”, I do not just mean a man and a woman with a certificate and 2.2 children; I mean the many varied patterns of family we find in our society. We can do more to support families and communities. In particular, we can do more to support grieving families, and we can do our best as a House to ensure that, day by day, year by year, fewer people in the British isles feel that they have nothing worth living for.

David Simpson: It is good to follow the excellent speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). A number of points have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members about the whole issue of suicide. The overall figures are a startling reminder of just how serious that subject is in society today. In the whole of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—6,045 people died from suicide in 2011. In Northern Ireland, the level of suicide has increased, with about 4,000 people having committed suicide between 2000 and the end of 2012. It is estimated that the final figure for 2012 will show that close to 300 people died last year in Northern Ireland through suicide. In the first nine months, the figure was 223 and it is estimated that it will reach 300 when the final analysis has been done. Those are startling figures.
	The awful impact of suicide on families has been mentioned numerous times, and we cannot mention it enough. It is horrific when we, as elected Members, have to go to homes and give our sympathy to those who have lost loved ones—a child or an older person—through suicide. We mean well as we go to pay our respects, but we can walk out of the house again and go back to spend time with our families whereas those people must live with the impact day in, day out. People ask questions, as we heard earlier, such as, “Why did it happen? Why did we not see something that would have shown us that there were problems or that there was an
	issue that we could have dealt with?” Those questions linger for years; they never leave those people, who think that there must surely have been something they could have done to prevent the suicide. Nothing in life is too serious for us not to sit down and talk about it and not to try to resolve it. The individual who died through suicide might have found that the issues were not as big as they originally thought if they had only sat down and talked to someone about them.
	In my constituency of Upper Bann, we have had our share of deaths of younger and older people through suicide. From memory, I would say that the youngest person to die through suicide in my constituency was 12 years of age. That was a very difficult home to go to and we must ask what would make a 12-year-old do that. There must have been something traumatic in that child’s life to make them do what they did, and the mark left on the family has been horrific.
	Many organisations across the United Kingdom deal with the issue and offer a lot of counselling. We have a number of them in my constituency. One that I deal with a lot is Yellow Ribbon, run by Dr Arthur Cassidy and a group of fantastic volunteers. I spoke to him earlier this week and over the past two years the organisation has counselled almost 400 people in my area. Its office is in the town of Portadown and many of those who have gone through its doors were referred by their GPs. The organisation has done a lot of work with young people and older people; it has a great passion for the people in the area and it has tried to help to the best of its ability.
	As I said, Dr Cassidy is helped by a group of volunteers, and finance is very hard for them. The organisation is run mostly on donations from families, churches and other such organisations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that some £30 million has been given to organisations that deal with the issues surrounding suicide, and although a large amount of money has been poured in, the situation is worsening in Northern Ireland. That is very, very worrying. Reference has been made to the legacy of the troubles and the difficulties in the Province. Another generation is emerging that is living with what has happened in the past. Perhaps their parents died in the same way, and it is a copycat: people are trying to copy what has happened. That is an awful blight on society.
	Dr Cassidy’s organisation counsels many people, and he does not believe that counselling is working as it ought to work. Perhaps we have to think outside the box and come up with more innovative ways of trying to help people and identify the issues that they face. When he talks to those people, he finds that they have very low self-esteem. Men who have worked for 25 or 30 years in one job are paid off and feel that they are not worth anything. They feel that the family would be better off without them, then tragedy strikes. That is the way it happens. When it does, they believe that it will solve an issue for them, but unfortunately it leaves a major problem for the families who are left to pick up the pieces.
	The economic crisis that we are going through is a difficult time. Only at the weekend, I spoke to families who are finding it so hard to make ends meet that in the week at the end of the month when they have to pay their mortgage—if they do not, they could go into
	arrears and lose their home—they do not buy groceries or food to feed the family. In society as a whole, life has become more difficult. Those of us who are in jobs and enjoy the benefits of work may not see it as much, but people who are out of work and who have lost benefits and so on are going through a difficult time.
	We need more innovative thinking, and we need to see whether we can help young people and get them into work projects and youth clubs, and help them to meet other young people. We have a lot of work ahead of us to do.

Mark Durkan: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and his colleagues on giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important issue, which, as we have heard, touches many people in many ways, and in ways that they find hard to express or represent. For all the reasons that we understand, it is important that we in the House—again, in our own inadequate and inarticulate way—not only try to express our feelings and represent the feelings of those who have lost people through suicide, but try to feel our way towards some sort of policy answer and structural response to a very serious problem that is growing in many ways.
	It is not just because the statistics are better collated that we can say that the problem is growing. There are issues, and people can analyse and compare the different statistical bases over the years. It is a problem that has gradually been able to express itself a bit more. Reference has been made to the fact that it has been a taboo subject. The first time that I heard of suicide was when I was in primary school in the late 1960s, and a family friend committed suicide. She was a great friend of my mother—she was great to all my brothers and sisters whenever we were in her fruit and vegetable shop—and I remember that my mother’s distress as a friend was based not only on all the usual questions that arise from suicide and the loss of a lovely friend. It was also based on the fact that her friend was denied a Christian burial and denied the rites of her own Church. That is what taboo meant then. Luckily, Churches have become more enlightened and many people have helped them to become more enlightened. So we can celebrate the fact that spiritual enlightenment can inform Churches in different ways, and their response to something that they class as a sin can change and develop. That has been very positive and has helped all of us as a community in many ways.
	I have found the debate hard. I agreed with many of the points, and I also felt many of the points. I have experienced suicide in my family more than once. I also have experience of suicide by people whom I regard as close—good friends, family friends and so on. All the things that all the right hon. and hon. Members have said are so, so true. We are stuck with that—the questions that will never leave, and the answers that will never come. There are people finding and developing answers, however. Maybe they are not answers to the particular suicide that has grieved me or grieves other members of my family and extended family, but answers as to how we may be able to get on top of the problem and as to how we can avert such tragedy and prevent it from afflicting other people as well.
	In many cases some of those answers are being driven by the families and the very people who have experienced suicide, and by the professionals who have witnessed that, provided support and said, “There has to be a better way. There has to be more that we can do. There has to be more that we can do together.” The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred to the work of the all-party group and the report. I do not speak often at the all-party group, for reasons that people will understand; I find it hard to contain my emotions on these things. One thing struck me as I was listening to people give evidence to the group—people who did not know which area I represented. A few times when people from parts of England were giving evidence about their experience and the things that they were trying to do in their area with their trusts and well-being boards, they referred to what they called the Derry model, which they wanted to see in their area.
	That is because in my constituency, in my city of Derry, as other hon. Members have said, we have grave levels of suicide, but there has been a strong community response and the local Western Health and Social Care Trust has tried to engage strongly on it. The trust has a suicide liaison officer, Barry McGail, who does not just work well locally, but is globally active and is part of progressive policy-pushing networks on the subject. When people spoke about the Derry model, part of what they meant was that suicide liaison service.
	The service is notified of a suicide by the police within 24 hours and its staff make family contact. They are there at the wakes, able to talk to the family and friends. They are able to bring leaflets and draw attention to other services in a sensitive way, so the issues are immediately picked up and the people who might be most emotionally affected or vulnerable after the suicide—other family members, friends, classmates and so on—can be identified and supported. That has worked well and has helped families through and has helped them feel that they are helping others, which is so important.
	More widely in Northern Ireland, we have a self-harm register, another positive development. It is run now by the Public Health Agency and is co-ordinated on a north-south basis. The register provides up-to-date information on people who may have attempted suicide or have self-harmed, so that the right services can be in touch with them or they can at least know that services such as counselling and other opportunities are available for them. Again, that is important in prevention. It is also important to learn the lessons of experiences and making sure that things that are known to one service are not lost to the knowledge and intelligence of another service that may be the right one to provide help.
	Some hon. Members have referred to the media in this regard. Of course, the media have particular responsibilities. They need to be very careful and sensitive in how they present any film or TV storylines depicting suicide. If they make suicide simply the natural conclusion to a narrative, that is completely wrong. Unfortunately, too often in the media it seems as though the suicide itself makes the statement, and that is very dangerous. Equally, the media, whether the print media or any other kind, need to be very sensitive in how they cover deaths by suicide. If they treat speculation about clusters—the hon. Member for Bridgend, who is unfortunately no
	longer here, has experienced this directly in her constituency—in an insensitive, invasive, exploitative and sensational way, that can add to the problems. It can not only add to the suffering and stress of families, but put more families at risk of loss and distress.
	Over a dozen years ago—this is not a new problem in Northern Ireland—people like Barry McGail worked on developing guidelines for the local media to use. One of the guidelines in circumstances where a suicide took place was for the media not to treat it in a way that linked it to a single dramatic event. I found myself in a situation where there was a suicide in another family that followed a death in my own family. With the support of education professionals, people like Barry McGail, and other people in the Western health board, I tried to prevail on the media not to treat the young man’s suicide as a “Romeo and Juliet”-type story. It was a struggle to get the media to comply with guidelines that had been drawn up sensitively with their own co-operation, and unfortunately we did not succeed in all instances. The media do have responsibilities in this regard.
	Then there is the new media, with the digital age and all the opportunities that are there. In relation to the sites that offer methods and techniques of suicide and appear to be encouraging it, Barry McGail says that although most young people will engage in social media, most of them will want to do so positively. As well as trying to police and shut down all the negative, dark sites, we need to think of more ways of making sure that there are far more positive connections and real pathways of assistance and communication. We need to develop new things such as apps that will be suitable for young people, in particular, who could be at risk.
	That is not to say that only young people are at risk of suicide. In my constituency and elsewhere, it affects the old and the young—mothers, fathers, and children. However, one of the things that gives me heart is that people who have been through these dark difficulties, and who are still not out of all that darkness, are desperately trying to remedy the situation through different networks, charities and support groups. In my town, they are supported by people such as those at Foyle Search and Rescue, who do such a good job in helping families who suffer following suicide in the river. When we were building the new iconic peace bridge in Derry, they worked with us to prevail on the architects to understand that it needed to be designed in a particular way with rails shaped so as not to lend themselves readily to suicide attempts.
	Foyle Search and Rescue houses and accommodates various groups of families who have come together. We also have groups such as Zest for Life, who work so well to counsel people who are suffering from problems, and HURT (Have Your Tomorrows), which particularly helps people who have been suffering from addiction or dependency and have specific vulnerabilities. These groups are succeeding in helping to reduce and to solve the problems, but they constantly come up against funding difficulties. There is also the issue of making sure that all the policies and services can mesh together.
	Finally, another positive feature in Northern Ireland is the ASIST—applied suicide intervention skills training— model, which has been borrowed from Canada and is working well where people engage with it. The big problem, however, is getting GPs to engage with it—they
	are not—because they are the vital cog and the key people. The issue has come up in the work of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. As the hon. Member for Bridgend will know, one of the questions that constantly comes up is: how do we get GPs involved in and engaged with this? Their input is vital and they are vital channels, but in their absence, people’s sense of purpose starts to wane and get weaker.
	I am not blaming GPs. Obviously, there are a lot of pressures and demands on them, so they need time out of their practice to do this. We need to see what locum support and other things are available to allow them to play their part in the very good efforts that are being made and to make good the investment being provided by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Other Members have been right to acknowledge the work of that Department, including that of the current Minister, Edwin Poots, and his permanent secretary, Andrew McCormick. We should also acknowledge the work of the previous devolved Ministers. It is a pity that the ministerial group did not meet for about 18 months, but that does not mean that other good work was not going on. For that work to be done, it needs to be supported, and I hope that today’s debate will help to support and encourage those people who deserve it in their important work on such a huge issue.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat no later than 5.35 pm, I call Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is right to say that the reasons for suicide are complex. The question that most families usually ask is: why? My constituency has a great organisation called If U Care Share, which was set up by Shirley Smith, whose 19-year-old son, Daniel, hanged himself a few years ago, having not showed any of the signs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He was, the family thought, a perfectly happy, contented teenager. The family then wondered what they could do. They set up If U Care Share, and Shirley, her husband, Dean, and their children, Ben and Matthew, go into schools to talk to young people about suicide and people’s feelings. People should not be ashamed to open up and talk about their feelings. They also work with youth clubs and the Football Association to get their message across.
	The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) noted how the highest number of suicides seem to be among men, and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned the figure of 6,000. I have just looked up the figure and it is about 4,500 who are actually men. As the hon. Member for Pudsey has said, mental health is not an issue that we talk about. I might sound like a broken record, but we need to keep talking about mental health.
	Today’s debate is good because, as the hon. Member for Foyle has said, we are talking about one of the great last taboos. The more we talk about mental health and the effect of suicide—not just on the individual and the lost opportunities for them and their family, but on society—the better we can draw up the systems to help.
	There is nothing wrong about talking about mental health, or about people admitting that they need help. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North has said, that is the big step that needs to be taken in most cases. We need to get the message across, not only to young people, but to everyone, that if they are in distress they need to ask for help. In my area, the statistics show that an older generation of men in their 30s and 40s are committing suicide. A reason for that might be the issue of the economic role of men of society, which has been mentioned. Unless we talk about it and put it on the national agenda, we will continue to come up against these issues.
	I have just one point to make. We need to join up the services, because the roles of the voluntary sector and the NHS are vital. GP commissioning could have great benefits, but it also brings great risks. I fear that when GPs commission services, mental health services might again be seen as the poor relation. We need a joined-up approach if we are to prevent the tragic losses that are now at a level which most people would say is unacceptable.
	I will finish by saying—again, I will sound like a broken record—that the more we speak about these issues, the better it is, because it will help young people and others who are in distress to take the major step of getting the help that is there if they only ask for it.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat no later than 5.45, I call Mr Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on bringing this matter to the House. I also congratulate my hon. Friends and everyone else who has spoken. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to sum up.
	Today is an example of this House working at its best. All Members and all parties have come together and issued a joint call from the Floor of the House for better services. The contributions that Members have made have shown that the House is an immense fount of knowledge. In the short time I have, I intend to highlight the main issues that have been raised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim introduced the subject very well. He referred to the bereavement caused by suicide. That is an interesting point, because people have to come to terms with what has happened and how it affects them. I had not thought about that until my hon. Friend made the point and I realise that he was right. Other Members have talked about how suicide affects a person’s entire family and their friends. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke about anniversaries in particular. I will return to that point in a moment. Those issues have been raised over and over again.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the vulnerability of people on coming out of prison. He spoke about the drug and alcohol culture among young men. That is not only an urban problem, but a rural problem. My hon. Friend’s constituency covers both types of area.
	Members have said that this must not be a taboo subject and that it is time that we faced up to it. Hopefully we have faced up to it in this debate. The contributions have been immense. We have all met people who hide their depression and anxiety. Members
	have raised the fact that the suicide rate is higher in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
	Prevention was a key theme in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim said. He referred to the impact that computers and websites can have on children. He challenged us to address these issues. That set the scene clearly for me.
	The Minister referred to the steps that are being taken to reduce suicide in England. He referred to the figures for the past year. His commitment to working with regional Assemblies is good news because it means that all parts of the United Kingdom, which are represented here today, are working together.
	Some 75% of those who take their lives are not known to Government agencies. I did not know that before this debate started. We can look for the signs in people, such as whether they have depression. Like all hon. Members, I have met people over the years who unfortunately fall into that category.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend gave a detailed, decisive and, I would say, masterful contribution to the debate and I thank her for that. She displayed great knowledge about the rates of suicide among 30 to 40-year-olds and among females.
	The question that everybody asks themselves—I have asked myself this question when friends of mine have died—is, “What could I have done to prevent it?” You search your heart, you search your soul and you almost put yourself into the grave worrying about what more you could have done. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned that. Behind that question there is perhaps a bit of guilt as well.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) spoke about the vital importance of support groups and Papyrus in particular. I am conscious that I am summing up and not making a contribution, but I just want to say that the LINK group in Newtownards does a magnificent job to help people who are considering suicide and those who have depression.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) spoke about suicide prevention and the moneys available in Northern Ireland, which gives that leadership, as well as the moneys that are set aside. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke on behalf of soldiers who leave the service and feel vulnerable, and as Members of Parliament we have all heard such cases.
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned the sensitivity surrounding the coroner’s report, and there is a lesson there for other parts of the United Kingdom after what has happened in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bridgend spoke about the use of sport for young people and the importance of correct wording in dramas and soaps, and that valid point was also made by the hon. Member for Foyle in a passionate and real way. A “suicide champion” was referred to, and the need to extend that across the United Kingdom, and the comments and points of view expressed contain lessons for all regions in the United Kingdom.

Mark Durkan: I am entirely comfortable with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying about how we need better to co-ordinate and mesh this work across the UK and
	use all means to do that. Of course, the problem is wider in these islands. Recently, Shane McEntee, a Government Minister in the south of Ireland, took his own life, and there are serious problems that need to be addressed even at school level. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this issue should perhaps be prioritised at the level of the British-Irish Council? Perhaps a debate such as this could take place at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly so that we gather all the experiences and good practice that has come out of the bad experiences in all parts of these islands?

Jim Shannon: I agree, and I think all Members of this House feel the same. I commend the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who referred to bullying at school and the importance of family when he was working in a hospice. He mentioned the difference between death and death from suicide—both very tragic and real issues—and spoke about the red socialist and the blue Tory working together. That is good and the way it should be in this House, doing the best we can.
	My right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) gave a detailed account of what happens in north Belfast which, along with west Belfast, unfortunately has a reputation for the highest suicide rates in Northern Ireland. He referred to the hard work done by many people in the PIPS group—the Public Initiative for Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm—FASA, churches and many other groups that do tremendous work. Queen’s university has made a study of north Belfast, and if my right hon. Friend ever needs facts or evidence of what is wrong and how to address it, those are issues we must consider.
	I have in my notes, “Coping with peace after years of violence”, and unfortunately in north Belfast, and perhaps west Belfast, that is one of the issues, and my right hon. Friend clearly addressed that point. He and other Members referred to copycat suicides, and the hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned anniversaries. The work done by the Samaritans in A and E was mentioned, and, as my right hon. Friend said, there are lessons to be learned for us all.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), said that although any death is tragic, suicide is the worst as it poses many questions for the family left behind, and she spoke about the issue very clearly and honestly. She referred to the good work done by Labour when it was in power. I know that to be the case and I look forward to more such work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to the increased number of suicides in Northern Ireland—300—and mentioned Yellow Ribbon and the 400 people helped by that organisation in one year. Four hundred people sought help, and volunteers and groups were there to help.
	I thank the hon. Member for Foyle for his passionate, powerful and revealing speech that moved us all, and he put forward a number of ideas. The Maiden City has a suicide awareness day; perhaps it could be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. He also referred to a self-harm register. Although not many people mentioned that issue in Northern Ireland, the British Medical Association referred to the fact that a third of those who self harm, commit suicide, so that issue is important. He mentioned the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
	Last but not least, I remember when the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke about mental health in the Chamber some time ago—I have never forgotten that speech. He spoke again today with passion and belief, and with the inner knowledge that comes from his experience. He has been able to describe that for all hon. Members in the Chamber.
	We should be clear that we need the voluntary services and the Government to work together. I thank everyone for their valuable and sensitive contributions in the Chamber today. The debate has been excellent.

Edward Timpson: I have a short 10 minutes to close the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—they have made well informed, serious contributions to this excellent and deeply insightful debate on this hugely important subject. As the Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister’s questions in commending DUP Members for tabling the motion, we, as a society, do not talk enough about suicide and the impact it has on families. By being up-front about its often complex causes, we can be better at recognising the signs that lead to suicide and at preventing more lives from being taken in future.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Health, said on behalf of the Government, every life taken by suicide is one too many. When that person is a child, the tragedy is merely multiplied. I am speaking as the Minister with responsibility for children and families as well as a co-chair of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. I shall briefly explain what the Department for Education is doing to help children as part of a cross-government outcomes strategy to prevent suicide, but before I do so I wanted to mention one or two of the contributions to the debate that have been though-provoking not just for me, but I am sure for many of the people watching and listening.
	I acknowledge the brave and touching speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who said that suicide has deeply affected not only his community, but his family. I know it was a difficult speech for him to make, but those suicides have left a lot of unanswered questions for him and many others. It leads to the conclusion that we must do more. We must acknowledge that we need to place huge importance on ensuring that the support made available to families who are grieving the loss of someone in such circumstances is at the heart of the services and support we offer in our communities.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made a powerful and compassionate speech to open the debate. He said we should not sweep suicide under the carpet—that we cannot run away from it and must face up to it. The situation in Northern Ireland is particularly concerning. He highlighted the fact that 289 people took their own lives in 2011. As he said, it is a personal tragedy for anyone who comes to that decision. We must bear in mind that it can often be triggered by what can seem like a minor or innocuous event. This is a complex issue, and there is very rarely a single factor, although mental health is often a central feature of suicide cases. We need to understand and be better aware of all the different events and pressures on people’s lives that can contribute to them coming to that state of mind.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, made, as usual, a highly knowledgeable speech and asked the question we should all ask ourselves: what causes suicide and self-harm to feature in people’s lives in the first place? Her point about raising awareness across agencies—she mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions as one such agency—was absolutely right. I will take it away and ensure that other Departments think carefully about how they train their staff so they understand the signs they need to look for and can point people in the direction of the support that we know is out there.
	On the hon. Lady’s point about the coroner’s narrative verdicts, the Ministry of Justice is, as she said, looking into the matter. I understand that the Office for National Statistics and the chief coroner will attend the next meeting of the Government’s national suicide prevention strategy advisory group—narrative verdicts are on the agenda—which is coming up next month. Hopefully, therefore, progress can be made.
	She also mentioned the “Help is at Hand” resource for people bereaved by suicide and other sudden traumatic deaths. It is an excellent piece of work that is clear and accessible for those who want support. We are distributing it, and it is on the Department of Health website. I think that approximately 1,000 copies are going out each month, but we need to do better and improve distribution. We are working with coroners’ offices to make sure we achieve that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) talked about the moving memory he has of someone he lost at school through suicide. He also talked about his work with the hospice movement. We need to ensure we understand that attitudes to suicide sometimes impact more deeply than we realise. Cyber-bullying is a particularly new phenomenon and it is more and more difficult for young people to escape its awful bearing on their own lives. To understand it better, we need to work closely with young people, and to listen to them and their experiences, rather than assuming that we know the answers ourselves.
	In the five minutes I have left, I want to touch on what the Department for Education is doing to try to raise awareness and improve our response, particularly with regard to child internet safety. The new suicide prevention strategy for England, which was published last September, has already been referred to. It is right that children and young people have an important place in that strategy. We should all be extremely concerned about the suicide rate among teenagers, even though it is below that of the general population.
	To help young people get the support they need and to be able to talk through their problems, we continue to support, to the tune of £11.2 million between 2011 and 2015, the valuable work done by ChildLine in providing children with free and confidential support in conjunction with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline.
	The strategy recognises—a point raised by a number of hon. Members—that the media have a significant influence on behaviour and attitudes, particularly for teenagers. In 2009—the hon. Member for Bridgend will be acutely aware of this—the Press Complaints Commission highlighted the impact of insensitive and inappropriate reporting of suicides. We all have to take children’s
	safety extremely seriously, particularly to protect them from any harmful or inappropriate online content. We are clear that we favour a self-regulatory model for the internet industry, but that is as much a pragmatic response as a philosophical response. We have heard today that the law makes it clear that people who intentionally encourage suicide via websites hosted in the UK are at risk of prosecution, and, to be absolutely clear, what is illegal offline is illegal online.
	We need to do more, and through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety board we are trying to make sure that all internet service providers step up to the plate and realise their responsibility. They need to ensure that these types of sites are kept away from young people, and that young people’s ability to have direct contact with them is removed altogether—they are truly horrible sites to have anywhere near one’s home.
	As the Minister with responsibility for UKCCIS, I am leading the work looking at how ISPs, filtering companies, device manufacturers and public wi-fi, which we find in our local coffee shops and retailers—all the information and communications technology industries—can work together to make sure harmful content is filtered out wherever our children are. With nine out of 10 children having access to the internet in their own home and with children aged between 12 and 15 proportionately more likely to own a smartphone than their parents, this issue is only going to get bigger rather than smaller.
	There are good examples of the internet industry working with the charitable sector, and that will be a key element as we go forward. As the hon. Member for South Antrim said, Google searches on the word “suicide” will return details of the Samaritans at the top of the results—a real step forward—and Facebook has teamed up with the Samaritans to make it easier to report concerns about a friend who might be considering self-harm or suicide. We must do more, however. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned, yesterday was the 10th safer internet day. I met a group of young people who were discussing the excellent “Have Your Say” survey. Some 24,000 school-aged children contributed to the largest ever survey about what they expect online. The thing they wanted most was to be safe. That is something we need to deliver for young people, because they are the ones exposed to what adults provide for them.
	In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate. I am sure that many people will be encouraged that the House takes the issue extremely seriously and can work together to keep people as safe as possible from the ravages that suicide can bring to families.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises that the number of suicides in the UK, particularly amongst young people, represents a major challenge for government and society; acknowledges the work that is taking place to address the issue; calls for even more urgency to be shown in seeking to reduce the rate of suicides; notes the danger posed in particular by websites which promote or give information about harmful behaviours such as suicide; and calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Further consideration of Lords amendments

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House of the fact that we are debating the Lords amendments to four different private Bills simultaneously, because they are close to identical, as are the amendments made in another place. Although we will debate the amendments together, the questions to dispose of the Lords amendments will be put on each Bill in turn.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment proposed (31 January): C6, page 2, leave out lines 17 to 27.—(Stuart Andrew.)
	Question again proposed, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C6.

Mr Deputy Speaker: When the debate was adjourned last Thursday, we were considering the second group of Lords amendments and the amendments to them. Mr Chope was speaking on Lords amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council Bill. With this amendment, we were also considering the following:
	Lords amendments C7 and C8, and C9 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Canterbury City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments L3 and L4, and L5 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments N3 to N5, and N6 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments R4 to R7, and R8 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Reading Borough Council Bill.

Christopher Chope: When we adjourned proceedings at 3.27 pm last Thursday, we were less than an hour into the debate on these amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:
	“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]
	I hope that remains the case.

Philip Davies: He’s got a second wind.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I can assure him he hasn’t.

Christopher Chope: I have no intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, of trying your patience. Given, however, that a few parliamentary colleagues are still hanging around, I thought that I would put on the record an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the deputy Chief Whip during Monday’s proceedings, when it was made clear that, although it was possible this debate might start at 4 o’clock and continue until 7 o’clock, if it ran late, it would not be of any significance, because there would be a one-line Whip and no interference in our affairs, whether from the Government or anybody else. I want to make it clear to anybody who thinks that they have to still hang around in the Chamber because this is whipped business, that it is not.

Philip Davies: To clarify that point, a message has gone out from the Whip’s Office to all colleagues saying that we are officially on a one-line Whip.

Christopher Chope: I am pleased to have that confirmation. It means that our attendance is voluntary.
	Since we have a new Minister, I hope that she will take the opportunity to expand on what her ministerial colleague said briefly in an intervention in the previous debate. In other words, will she explain the full implications of the Government’s consultation paper, in which the Government said they had no choice but to abolish the Pedlars Act 1871 to comply with the European services directive? I hope that she will explain how, if that is correct, the Government can support amendment C9 passed in their lordships House.
	In conclusion, I hope that I will be able to move formally amendment (g) to Lords amendment C9, because it is the most telling amendment down in my name in this group of amendments. Amendment (g) would remove the provision allowing designation in order to prevent obstruction of the highway. That is such a wide provision that it effectively reintroduces by the back door the touting provisions in clause 11, which Lords amendment 15 would remove. Anybody could be thought to be able potentially to obstruct the highway; therefore, the local authorities concerned would be able to designate areas where no activity could take place whatever, which would be a total abuse. That is why I would like the opportunity in due course to test the will of the House on amendment (g).

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council—

David Nuttall: rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.

Christopher Chope: We want the Minister to speak as well.

David Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope we have a chance to hear from the Minister on the points that have been raised. I am sure she will have read what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said in opening the debate last Thursday.
	I rise to speak to this group of Lords amendments and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend for debate in the House last Thursday. I thank him for the comprehensive way he set out the amendments in that debate and in his concluding remarks today. Let me also say how grateful I am for the work undertaken in the other place by the noble Lords. They have thoroughly and efficiently considered all the issues involved in these Bills. Their noble lordships were not prepared simply to nod these Bills through, as some might have feared, including—I have to say, with much regret—myself. One could well have forgiven their lordships for thinking that as these Bills had been trundling along the parliamentary legislative pathway for some time—albeit
	at the pace of a rather arthritic snail—there could not possibly be any purpose in subjecting them to further detailed scrutiny.
	As it is, their noble lordships recognised the importance of pedlars in our society, as those of us who take an interest in these matters in this place do too. The place of pedlars in the life of our nation dates back to the time of Chaucer. Their noble lordships considered the general principles behind the introduction of these Bills and how the detail of the new proposed laws would operate in practice. Pedlars are the ultimate in micro-businesses. The ability for someone with a relatively small amount of capital to start a business travelling from place to place buying and selling goods has been the starting point for many of our great businesses, including some household names.
	It would seem that the local authorities promoting the four private Bills before us today were at least partly motivated by a wish to protect the revenue they received from licensed street traders. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it was suggested in the other place that these Bills were seeking to achieve the “total eradication of pedlars” from the streets of the cities of Canterbury, Leeds and Nottingham and the borough of Reading. As hon. Members will be aware, there is a great deal of difference between a pedlar and a street trader. It was submitted that the reason why it was thought necessary to try to remove pedlars from those three cities and one borough was to prevent the streets from being obstructed by pedlars as they stopped to sell their wares. Their lordships did not accept that it was appropriate to remove pedlars completely, but they did think it appropriate that the size of the trolley used by pedlars should be limited. Amendment C9 seeks to do just that. It is worth noting the words used by Baroness Knight of Collingtree, who chaired the Select Committee established in the other place to consider the Bills, to justify amendment C9. Referring to the fact that counsel for the local authorities promoting the Bills had produced photographs supporting their contention that the pedlars were causing unacceptable congestion, she said:
	“The members of the committee asked for evidence and they produced photographs of their streets, which of course were very crowded. We scrutinised them carefully and asked questions.”
	The crucial sentence follows:
	“We concluded that nothing we had been shown, or told, proved the case that the local authorities were making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 445.]
	That is a most telling statement. I submit that it provides proof to the House of what my hon. Friends and I have been trying to establish from the outset—namely, that the Bills are far from straightforward. It should not be taken for granted that the case for the legislation has been proven, or that the Bills should simply be nodded through the House without detailed scrutiny. What has happened in the other place has largely justified the stance taken by my hon. Friends when the Bills were previously considered in this House.
	We have already seen how, as a result of the first group of amendments, clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which deal with seizure, forfeiture and the payment of compensation, were all taken out of the Bill completely. They were not amended, or even slightly modified; they were removed in their entirety. In this group, amendment C8 deletes clause 4 completely and amendment C9
	deletes clause 5 altogether and replaces it with an entirely new clause whose purpose is completely different from the original one.
	It is worth noting the details of the proposed new clause. It sets out in great detail the nature of the trolley that a pedlar would be permitted to use. It gives overall dimensions for the trolley when it is being used, but it also—rather unnecessarily, in my opinion—gives details of the size of the trolley when empty. I am not sure what the relevance of that could be. Surely the overall dimensions set out in proposed new paragraph (2C) would be sufficient. Provided the trolley did not exceed a width of 0.88 metres, a depth of 0.83 metres or a height of 1.63 metres, I fail to see how it could be prejudicial to the council or to the users of the highway. I also fail to see how it would prevent an obstruction from being caused if the trolley were of a different size from that set out in proposed new paragraph (2B), which specifically states that it should not exceed a width of 0.75 metres, a depth of 0.5 metres and a height of 1.25 metres.
	There is no explanation of why those precise, detailed figures have been chosen. What is the special significance of a width of 0.88 metres? Why not a width of—

Julian Brazier: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36)

Christopher Chope: Shame!

Lindsay Hoyle: Shame it may be, but I think the time has come. I enjoy hearing the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I do not think there is anything new in what he says, so I will accept the closure.
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby. I am worried that we have lost four Members. Will she try to retrieve them to get the vote through?
	The House having divided:

Ayes 258, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C6.
	Lords amendment C6 agreed to.
	Lords amendment C7 agreed to.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Provision of services

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C8.—(Stuart Andrew.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 255, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment C8 agreed to.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Pedlars

Amendment (g) proposed to Lords amendment C9.—(Mr Chope.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided.
	Mr Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Noes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who challenged and who supported his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Noes had it, five Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
	Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendments C9 to C14 agreed to.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Touting

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C15.—(Mr Brazier.)

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments C16, C17, C19, C28, C31, C2 and C1.

Christopher Chope: I would like to speak to this group of Lords amendments. I find it very surprising that we have not had an introductory speech to explain why it is thought that the amendments should be accepted by this House and to give some background to them.

Julian Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hon. Members: Is it a point of order?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is a point of order, and the answer is that it is up to the Member in charge whether he wishes to speak to the amendments or not, and obviously he did not. Does anybody wish to speak to them?

Christopher Chope: I wish to speak to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, Mr Chope, I am desperate to hear from you.

Christopher Chope: This Lords amendment deals with touting. A whole lot of other consequential amendments are included in the group. Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom—[Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we have a little silence? As we wish to hear Mr Chope, will Members be quiet if they are leaving the Chamber?

Christopher Chope: Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom accepted that these Lords amendments, which relate to touting, should be dealt with in a separate group, and that is what we are discussing. The lead amendment would remove clause 11, and the subsequent amendments deal with consequential matters relating to the touting provision. When we discussed this previously, I cannot remember how many years ago, a lot of concern was expressed, particularly by my—

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is always courteous in debate. He will recall that these amendments were promised by me in the Commons because he asked for them, and introduced in the Lords exactly as we promised, so I am very surprised that he wants to debate them again.

Christopher Chope: We now have, after a bit of pressure, an admission from my hon. Friend that he has done exactly what he said he would do by ensuring that the amendments would be moved successfully in their lordships House. I and my parliamentary colleagues who have fought so valiantly to remove the most pernicious parts of these Bills can now say that, because of the work that we have been doing in this House over many years, the Bills are much improved as a result of these Lords amendments.
	As my hon. Friend has said, he promised Lords amendment C15 to this House when these Bills were given their Third Reading. He has honoured that undertaking by ensuring that it was tabled in the other place. It is fair to say that we both think that the other place’s debate took a lot longer than expected. On the basis of the proposed amendments, we had expected the Bills to go through the other place relatively quickly but they did not because their lordships decided to look at them in a lot more detail. As a result, we received a series of Lords amendments, some of which we discussed earlier, that made a significant difference to the Bills—not just to the touting provision, but to the definition of pedlars. Therefore, when I seek the indulgence of the House, it is in order to ensure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and the Opposition realise that this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Although a lot of colleagues have consistently voted against the ideas that I and a number of my hon. Friends have suggested—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think it is very interesting to hear Mr Chope and I hope that other Members will take notice, because a lot of conversations are going on and we are struggling to hear.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If there is going to be a Division on any of the amendments in this group, will you give Members notice of it so that if they do not wish to participate in this debate and want to carry on their conversations outside they can do so, and that, in due course, if there is a Division the Division bell will ring in the usual way? Could you make that clear, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I just did make it clear that we do not want any more private conversations. We will stick to the business in hand. I and other Members obviously wish to hear you, so please continue.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Sometimes during the course of discussing these pedlars Bills, we who have been on the side of the pedlars have, in a sense, been given an insight into what it must be like to be a pedlar, against whom there is a lot of prejudice among ordinary members of the public. Similarly, quite a lot of prejudice has been generated against those Members of this House who have stood
	up for the interests of pedlars. It is helpful for us to reflect on the real changes that we in this House, collectively, have made to the Bills.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend note the irony that, previously, Members stayed behind to vote against the amendments that he and I tabled on touting, yet now they are staying behind to vote for them because the Lords tabled them? It is ironic that Members want to stay behind so late in order to vote differently from how they voted last time.

Christopher Chope: I fear that, on too many occasions, parliamentary colleagues do not actually look at what they are voting on. I cannot think of any other explanation of why Members would wish to vote in a completely different way from how they voted earlier.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The obvious reason why this House is so full is that hon. Members wish to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is always illuminating.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as always, for his intervention, but on this occasion he is absolutely wrong.
	This is the last group of amendments that we will debate on this Bill. In fact, the amendments relate not only to the Canterbury City Council Bill, but to all the Bills that we are discussing. It is right at this stage to pay tribute to everybody who has participated in these debates.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend on these subjects for a number of years. When I was the Opposition spokesman, I advocated looking at these issues on a national basis so that individual councils did not have to come forward with different Bills. Would that not be a much more sensible approach?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. We have made progress in that regard. When these Bills were first debated, the Labour Government were reluctant to do anything about it, but under the present Government we have had a new consultation paper on the whole subject. That paper makes it clear that the Government’s view is that there may be a strong case for national legislation instead of piecemeal legislation.
	The Government have said that if they have to change the legislation to ensure that all the local Acts and the Bills that we are discussing today comply with the EU services directive, they will include the provisions that are put forward by each local authority before the end of the consultation period later this month in collective legislation to ensure that the provisions relating to the rights and responsibilities of pedlars are common throughout the land.
	One benefit of this debate having been extended over almost a six-year period is that we have had the chance to consider the impact of the services directive, which, among other things, applies to touting for services, which is the subject of this group of Lords amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will remember, when we raised the issue of the services directive initially, there was
	much scepticism among Government Members and people like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury who have sponsored these Bills. They said that we were raising the services directive as a red herring in order to waste time.
	We have now found out that the Government are taking the matter so seriously that they have realised that all the pedlars Acts may have to be repealed to facilitate compliance with the services directive. That implies that when the former Government first thought about the impact of the services directive on the United Kingdom, they and their advisers got it completely wrong. They should surely have understood the implications of the directive when it was being negotiated in Brussels. That is just another example of how we have lost control over our own affairs through the loss of sovereignty, which is being passed to the European Union.
	All’s well that ends well in the sense that the Government now recognise that many of the services provisions in these Bills are wholly inappropriate. I suspect that even if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had not offered, when the Canterbury City Council Bill was before the House on Third Reading, to withdraw the touting provisions in the other place, it would have been necessary to take them out anyway because of their lack of compliance with the services directive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is there not something ironic about the European Union coming to the rescue of my hon. Friend to sort this matter out?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have had a good round-up of the Bill and I know that the hon. Gentleman is now desperate to get back to discussing the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I detect that all good things must come to an end, and in the light of the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has behaved, and in tribute to work done by their lordships in the other place and their thorough examination of the Bill, it would be churlish of me to say that I will vote against the amendments in this group. I must, however, have a caveat to that, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. He may persuade me that I am incorrect. Subject to anything that he says, I am—to use an expression from the other place—“content” to allow the Lords amendments to proceed.

Philip Davies: As has been said, we are discussing the last group of amendments and I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Colleagues who have shown a belated interest in this Bill may think that they have in effect been thwarting my hon. Friend over the past few minutes. Instead, they have been voting to rubber-stamp amendments to the Bill for which he argued many years ago but which the Government of the time, and elements of the Opposition—the Conservative party was sitting on the other side of the House then—resisted. It is a measure of my hon. Friend’s success that he has gone from leading a few of us into the Lobby to support his
	amendment to this red letter day on which 250 people have supported that amendment. He should be very proud of that.

Ben Gummer: I wish to place on the record that my first intervention in this House was during a discussion on this matter, probably in May or June 2010. Before we conclude our proceedings, it is important to say that I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his ability to cover a range of subjects. That evening we discussed the monastic rights of the city of Canterbury, and a creature called the Pedlar of Swaffham that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). At each turn my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was able to discourse on those obtuse matters with eloquence and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he says, however, all good things come to an end and perhaps it is good at this moment to draw a line under this varied subject.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and make it clear to the House that he knows so much more about matters than I do; his expertise spreads far and wide. I have certainly learned a lot over the years, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is also learning a great deal from him.
	Given that so many people have shown a belated interest in this Bill, it seems only right that before they vote on the Lords amendments they understand what they have been invited to vote on. In previous discussions on this matter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we have been debating these Bills for around six years—we were, to be perfectly frank, talking to a small audience. We could therefore, through various nods and winks, understand each other’s arguments, and the Bill could rapidly progress and rush to a Division because we all knew what we were talking about. Tonight we are in a unique position where lots of people who want to participate in the voting do not know the Bill’s six years of history as I and my hon. Friend do. We must lay out exactly what people will be voting for in this group of amendments because I would not want anyone to vote inadvertently for something in which they do not believe.
	The amendments relate to clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill, and this is the right time to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). During the passage of the Bill, he has probably felt a great deal of frustration on occasion, as have other Members who have sponsored the Bills. In all fairness to him, he did not sit there in frustration without listening to the arguments and taking on board what was said. He was good enough to listen to the force of the argument. We had a long debate on touting in relation to the Canterbury City Council Bill, and he was good enough to listen to the arguments. As he made clear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I did not hear all of it because of the hoo-hah going on at the time—the amendment results from the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury at previous stages. He said it would be a fair deal to get rid of clause 11.
	Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is one of the most honourable people, if not the most honourable
	person, in the House. As ever, he has been as good as his word. However, we cannot leave it at that—the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill is a precedent—because assurances given in the House on how legislation will be dealt with in the other place have not always been kept. We cannot therefore take it as read that their lordships decided to accept the amendment on the word of my hon. Friend, because they have decided to ignore the words of other hon. Members in the past. We must therefore presume not only that their lordships wished to keep to my hon. Friend’s word, but that they were persuaded by the case.
	It is striking that, whereas the Lords have decided to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury City Council Bill—that is the amendment we are debating—they chose not to delete clause 11 from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which is virtually identical. Clause 11(1)(b) in both Bills lists the places to which the provisions will apply. However, whereas the Reading Borough Council Bill refers only to “a street”, the Canterbury City Council Bill refers to
	“a street or esplanade, parade, promenade or way to which the public commonly have access, whether or not as of right.”
	That is the only difference in the clauses in the two Bills.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in his opening remarks, it is perhaps a shame that we have not had a great explanation of what their lordships were thinking when they made the amendment to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury Bill. Is the difference in the wording of the two Bills a matter of principle on touting or a matter of practicality? In essence, the measures are the same.

Christopher Chope: Does this not present a perfect opportunity for the Minister to make her maiden contribution to our discussions on the Bills?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the first time any hon. Member in my seven or eight years in the House has ever said or indicated that they want to hear a little more from me. It certainly has been a red letter day for me, too. I am flattered, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch makes a good point. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is in the Government’s mind. Perhaps she will explain why the amendment should be supported and why the wording should apply to the Canterbury City Council Bill but not to the Reading Borough Council.
	Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what the Government’s view is of the principle of touting tickets and so on. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published a report on ticket touting in 2008. I am lucky enough to serve on that Committee, so it is a subject close to my heart. People will have spotted that what is striking about that report is the date—it came out in the middle of the discussions on the Bill. I do not know whether their lordships were influenced in any way by the recommendations of the Committee—I very much hope they were; it was an excellent report, so that may well be the case—or whether they were influenced
	by the Bill’s principles, but hon. Members may wish to bear in mind the fact that this is a very strange clause in the sense that it is called “Touting”, and that is what is referred to throughout the clause.
	The first recommendation of the Select Committee’s report—of course, I will not go through all the recommendations, but it is wise to highlight some of the pertinent ones—states:
	“It is important to bear in mind that the term ‘touting’ has very different meanings to different people”.
	When we have a Bill that refers to “touting” as if we all know what touting is, hon. Members should bear in mind that comment by the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I had always understood that the term “touting” usually related to tickets for sporting events. Could my hon. Friend explain how the word covers that use, as well as the use in the Bill?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will just say in passing that I very much agreed with his earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch when he said that these matters are best dealt with at a national level. We are either in favour of ticket touting or we are not, and the same rules should apply across the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I think that many people will believe that touting relates mainly to sporting events, or perhaps even big music events, which is maybe one of the reasons why it is in, for example, the Reading Bill in the first place, as it has a big music festival.
	My hon. Friend will be interested to know that clause 11(2) talks about affecting
	“Any person who, in a place designated under this section”—
	I mentioned briefly about the areas that apply—
	“importunes any person by touting for a hotel, lodging house, restaurant or other place of refreshment, for a shop, for a theatre or nightclub or other place of amusement or recreation, or for a boat or other conveyance shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
	Straight away, my hon. Friend will appreciate that this goes far beyond what he and many other people might think of it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am troubled about this definition of “touting”, because it includes all forms of entertainment. If one were to give out a leaflet asking people to join the local Conservative party, which is always a source of the greatest entertainment, would that potentially count as touting and be illegal in Reading but legal in Canterbury?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that we need to go down that path; I do not think it would be illegal anywhere.

Philip Davies: I am grateful for that guidance. It has saved me from having to deal with that particular intervention

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend think that Mr Deputy Speaker’s ruling applies only to Conservative leaflets, or will it apply to Labour leaflets as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that there is no need to reply to that either.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I fear I am being troubled by questions that I am unable to answer.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In the interests of impartiality, may I inquire about the Liberal Democrats?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Just to show that I am impartial, absolutely not.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you want me to get back to the matter in hand.

Ben Gummer: This is an issue of concern. One feature of Brick lane, near which I live, are the many people touting for their restaurants. I suppose that a natural consequence of the proposal is that touting for a restaurant in London will be entirely legal, but in Reading it will not. That inconsistency bears out precisely the point that my hon. Friend made earlier.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I want us to deal with the amendments, not worry about London or Brick lane.

Philip Davies: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a good point, however, in that the amendment, which would delete the clause on touting from the Canterbury Bill, raises the question: what is so special about Canterbury? If the House agrees to the amendment, we will remove the restrictions on touting from the Bill. It might well be that people want controls on touting in Canterbury because of its particular circumstances. We ought to listen to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during an earlier stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding the offer he eventually made, he made it clear, at that point, that the restriction on touting was an essential part of the Canterbury Bill. He said that Canterbury suffered from huge problems, with which I am not familiar, of people touting for business in certain—perhaps historic—parts of the city. Perhaps people felt that touting took something away from the city.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are people in the House who speak Middle English as if it were their first tongue. We all know that the word “tout” comes from the Middle English word “tuten”, meaning “to look out for”, but may I warn him that in Northern Ireland the word has a very specific and very dangerous meaning? It will frequently be found written on gable ends. I appreciate that Northern Ireland is not Reading, and it is certainly not Canterbury, but it is a word we ought to be careful with.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need to tout for interventions either.

Philip Davies: I guess that the hon. Gentleman is merely highlighting the point I am making and which the Select Committee started out with, which is that the term “touting” has different meanings to different people. I am grateful to him for accepting that point.
	In considering whether to support the Lords amendments, it is important that Members decide whether they think that touting is a perfectly acceptable practice or an unsavoury practice. Of course, there are some unsavoury parts of touting—they are not specific to touting itself, but go along with it. For instance, people associate the selling of counterfeit tickets with touting. As it happens, however, that is already a criminal offence. It is not a good excuse for banning touting anywhere, given that legislation is already in place to deal with it. It might well be that people feel it clutters up a town or city and that it would look better without such people making a nuisance of themselves. It might well be that people think the nuisance is worth stopping. Perhaps they are being pestered by people handing out leaflets or trying to drag them into their restaurant against their wishes with a lasso or whatever mechanisms it is they use.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend is talking about false imprisonment—people being dragged into restaurants against their will—and surely that is against the law anyway.

Philip Davies: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is renowned in the House for defending individual freedom. Of course, if people wish to be encouraged into a place, that is a matter for their free choice, but if people go too far, they would be breaking the law. Those practices may well lead people to want to stop touting altogether.
	Some people think that touting acts against the interests of the general public. This brings us to the crux of the argument about whether in principle we should find touting acceptable or unacceptable, as well as back to the point my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made about the touting of tickets for sporting events. Touts mop up tickets for extremely popular events at a low price or at face value and sell them on at an inflated price to the general public who could not get their hands on them because the touts were buying up all the stock. In effect, the general public—the fan or the person who genuinely wants to go—end up having to pay above the odds for their tickets, which people find unsavoury. The Select Committee took a great deal of evidence on that. Indeed, there has been a great deal of concern about this issue and interest in it.
	As it happens, it was not just the Select Committee that looked into the issue. The Office of Fair Trading has also investigated whether ticket touting should be stopped because it acts against the interests of the consumer. After many months of inquiry, the Office of Fair Trading found—this was consistent with the evidence it gave us during our inquiry—that, on the whole, touting acts in the best interests of the consumer, and it does so on a number of levels. In many cases, someone who has bought a ticket for an event that they genuinely hope to go to, but who finds that for some reason they cannot go, will be refused a refund by those who sold them the ticket because it is non-returnable. That person is left with a ticket—it could be an expensive ticket—that they cannot do anything with. What are they expected
	to do? Their only hope is what is known as the secondary market, which is what is known colloquially as touting. Indeed, I am rather surprised that clause 11 is entitled “Touting”. I think that “Secondary market” would probably be a fairer name.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As I have listened to this debate my understanding of the word “touting” has been considerably expanded. I want to test what it means in the context of this Bill. If I were a pedlar in Canterbury and I started distributing leaflets on people’s doorsteps, would I be caught by this Bill for touting?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend asks a fair question. In effect, he stumbles—whether intentionally or not—on to quite an interesting point about this Bill. In many respects, this part of the Bill has nothing to do with pedlars, because it need not be a pedlar who is selling the tickets. The term “pedlar” has a legal definition—it refers to someone who needs a licence—whereas the Bill as it stands, if Lords amendment C15 was not accepted, would apply to anybody, whether a pedlar or not.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In the past, we have concentrated on the definitions of “street trading” and “pedlars”. Is he now suggesting that there is a third category—neither a street trader nor pedlar, but someone who is simply operating in the secondary market for tickets?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clause 11 stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the Bill, whish is pretty consistent in being about pedlars and street traders, as he rightly says. I pay tribute to the scrutiny he has given the Bill during its passage through this House. Clause 11 stands alone in that it can apply to anybody. It should be an acceptable part of life—it would be acceptable to me, as well as the Office of Fair Trading and the Select Committee, which looked at this—for someone in Canterbury who happened to have purchased a ticket for an event they could no longer attend to sell their ticket on to somebody else. Once people have bought their ticket, it is their ticket. If they want to sell it on to someone else, that should be a matter for them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Surely this should be a matter of contract. If the ticket prohibits the purchaser from selling it on, they should be prohibited from so doing, and if it allows the use of the secondary market, that should be allowed. Purchasing a ticket is a contractual activity; the ticket is not an item of property.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point but, interestingly, it is not made clear in the provision that that would be the case. Many tickets state that they are not to be resold, or that they are non-transferable. The promoter of an event could take the matter to court to test the contract, and the court could find against the person who had sold the ticket on, whether for a profit or not.

Stephen Pound: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I will in a moment.
	The striking thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, no promoter of any event in this country has ever had the courage to test such a provision in court. I could be
	wrong, but I believe that that has been done in Australia, however, and that the Australian courts found against the promoter of the event. They found that it was unfair to attach the condition to the ticket that it should not be resold.
	I suspect that we are now discussing the provision on touting because the promoters of events are not satisfied that the law of the land will help them in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggests. If what he said were true, there would be no need for any of these provisions on touting. Clause 11 would be redundant, because an event promoter could simply take their grievance to the courts. However, if the courts are not going to help, as I understand is the case at the moment, clauses such as these need to be incorporated into Bills so that touting can be dealt with, not because the touts are selling tickets but because people do not like them and want them to be moved off the streets and given fixed penalty notices.

Stephen Pound: rose—

Philip Davies: I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: He is unforgettable.

Philip Davies: Indeed he is.
	Notwithstanding the question of an individual’s freedom to do what they want with a ticket that they have bought, it seems unacceptable to include the clause in the Bill, as it would provide for imposing a further penalty. Let us imagine that someone had bought a ticket to an event but could no longer attend it. They would lose their money because they could not get a refund, but if they tried to resell their ticket, they would also face being fined for so doing. They would lose out financially.

Stephen Pound: I do not know how they order these things in the city of Christopher Marlowe, but this matter has now been tested in cities that have premier league football teams. There is now a non-profit-making organisation called Seatwave that enables anyone who has a ticket for any English or Scottish premier league match to resell it through that organisation. The key point, however, is that the prohibition on the resale of tickets has been sustained in court. I do not know about the case in Australia, but in Fulham, that is the law.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have given hon. Members a bit of leeway, but I am worried that we are now getting into retail matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as we all know. I hope that we can now stick to the matters in hand, and have fewer interventions; otherwise, we are going to drift into areas where I do not need to be.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to be sidetracked by people trying to lead me astray. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is always trying to do that, but I shall resist the temptation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I want to ask my hon. Friend a question on the specifics of the amendment that we are considering. As I understand it, someone with a ticket in Reading would need to go to Canterbury to do their
	touting, because it would be illegal in Reading but not in Canterbury thanks to their lordships’ wise amendment. Is that correct?

Philip Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The good news is that we are dealing only with Canterbury. I am not worried about Reading, and neither is Mr Davies.

Philip Davies: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right that I am not worried about Reading—except in the sense of trying to find some guidance about why their lordships decided that this particular clause should be deleted from the Canterbury City Council Bill but not deleted from the Reading Borough Council Bill when they are virtually the same. All we can do is consider how the detail in this particular clause is different from the other one.
	When people decide whether this is a good amendment to support, the first question they will consider is whether they support touting. I hope I have been able to make the case that ticket touting is, as far as I am concerned, a perfectly legitimate part of the free market and people’s freedoms. People should not be prohibited from touting per se. As the Office of Fair Trading found, touting acts largely in the interests of consumers, and if somebody asks a price way in excess of the face value, people do not have to pay that price if they do not want to. Nobody is forcing them to; it is their free choice. I hope that people will not object to this amendment on the basis of principle, because I hope people will think that touting is a principle worth supporting.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that with ticket touting it is acceptable to charge an added value or premium, but that income and revenue belongs to the artist, performer or whomever the person buying the tickets has paid to see. Does he not agree that that is denying them an income?

Philip Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are certainly not opening that issue. I am sure the Whip has better things to do at this stage.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if I may be allowed—I do not want that comment to be left hanging on the record—I would like to say quickly that the touts have already bought the tickets, so the artist already has their income. It makes no difference to their income whether it is resold at a different price. I do not wish to pursue that line of argument any further; I just wanted to put that on the record in passing.
	I hope that when people are considering whether to support the Lords in their amendment, they will not object to it on the principle that they do not like ticket touting, as I think that would be very unfortunate. It would fly in the face of all the evidence received by the Select Committee and reflected in its conclusions. We
	were unanimous in thinking that the secondary market was a perfectly legitimate one, and the Office of Fair Trading believes that it works in the best interests of consumers, too.
	It seems to me therefore that, given what their lordships have done, this was not a question of principle. If it were a question of principle, I presume that the provision would have been removed from the Reading Bill as well. It can only be, then, a matter of practicality. That brings us back to the detail in clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill, which is about the location in which people can sell their tickets. That is the only bit that is different. Only subsection (1)(b) is different, and it relates to where people can sell.
	Here I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right, in that it would be helpful if Members had some explanation of the local circumstances in Canterbury. I have been to Canterbury once. Unfortunately, it was not to visit the charms of the city and its history, but to visit the Asda store when I worked for Asda. I am not particularly au fait with the city centre, although I am sure it is a fine place.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. I am listening to the construction of his argument on the issue of the location in Canterbury. While I consider the merits of his argument, will he shed any light from his reading of their lordships debate on whether they considered the evidence base relating to location in Canterbury or whether there are any third-party evidence bases that the hon. Gentleman himself has read that would allow the House to make an informed decision?

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I think raises a good point. As far as I understand it—the question might be more helpfully answered by the Bill’s promoter or the Minister when it comes to an explanation of the pretext for this—that appears not to have been a great factor in their lordships discussions. By that, I mean the situation as it stands in Canterbury. Where people tend to be located, how many people are engaging in this activity, what nuisance might be caused to local residents and whether tourists have been put off from coming into Canterbury because they have had a bad experience and do not want to return again are all potential reasons for the strength of Canterbury’s feelings about the inclusion of clause 11, but I am not aware that any of them were considered.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is not confusing the argument, but the argument is confusing me. I have received many representations about matters of concern to the House, but I have received none about this matter. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it may have been important to the people of Canterbury in the context of what he describes as a possible motivation for the Bill, but they do not seem to have written to me about it. Has he received any correspondence from the people of Canterbury recently, explaining why it was important for the House’s time and votes to be spent on this Bill?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that we need worry about Members’ mail boxes while we are dealing with clause 11. I am sure that
	the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is desperate to stick to the point, and he certainly need not worry about other Members’ mail boxes.

Philip Davies: Of course I accept your wise counsel, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say, however, that their lordships do not appear to have focused too much on the niceties.
	When we began our debate on the Bill, we were told that clause 11 was crucial. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I tried to have it removed, our attempts were resisted, and it is because their lordships had to intervene that we are debating it now. The promoters, who were originally adamant about the inclusion of the clause, are now satisfied that it can be removed as their lordships wish. Earlier, I commended the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had listened to the arguments. What I do not understand is why the amendment could not have been dealt with earlier.
	I urge Members to reject any views on the principle of touting, and to consider the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will know much more about this than I do, but it seems to me that there is not a great deal of difference between a provision relating to streets and one that also includes parades and promenades.

David Nuttall: I think that I may have identified a crucial difference between the three Bills that contain a long description and the Reading Borough Council Bill, which uses the one word “street”. All the other Bills relate to city councils. The Canterbury Bill is one of the three city council Bills, and in that respect it differs from the Reading Bill.

Philip Davies: I am—I think—grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) may have been becoming confused, but I am beginning to think that I am becoming confused as well. I am not aware that the extra description in subsection (1)(b) has anything to with the fact that this is a city council Bill, as opposed to a borough council Bill. My understanding was that this particular difference related only to the different natures of the places concerned. I presumed that in Reading there was no promenade, parade or esplanade to which the Bill could apply. I could be wrong but my hon. Friend seemed to be arguing that, in effect, it is the same provision but there is a local difference based on the fact that one is a city council and the other is a borough council. My understanding, however, is that it is essentially the same, but it reflects the different nature of the towns and cities concerned. Clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill mentions “parade”, however, and I find it difficult to imagine that there is not a parade in Reading. That would lead me to ask why it is so important to ban selling on a parade in Canterbury, but not on a street in Reading.

Christopher Chope: Is not this whole situation complicated by the fact that we have now agreed to Lords amendment C9, the consequence of which is to have designated areas rather than streets? The area set out in clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill could now be regarded as a designated area under amendment C9.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right in that some of the earlier amendments that were so enthusiastically accepted by the House might have implications for this part of clause 11, which is about the designation of where people can or cannot tout their tickets and other goods and services.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a good point, however, particularly when we take into account the potential impact of the decision in Cooper v. the Metropolitan Police Commissioner of 1986, where the courts decided that somebody who was working as a tout for a Soho club was guilty of obstruction. The obstruction provisions as amended by amendment C9 could be used against touts, notwithstanding this amendment, which takes out clause 11.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He tried to do something about the issue of causing obstructions in the previous group of amendments. Amendment C9 has been agreed to, and we must consider clause 11 in relation to provisions already accepted. My hon. Friend may well be right that that amendment could make clause 11 redundant, as we have already got the job done. I am not entirely sure whether that is the case, but I am not a lawyer, whereas my hon. Friend has the considerable advantage over me of being a very distinguished lawyer, so I bow to his superior knowledge. These points should be taken into account when Members decide whether to agree to the Lords amendment under discussion.
	The other amendments are all consequential, so we do not need to worry ourselves with them. I shall therefore conclude my brief remarks, which took us on a quick canter around the course on touting in general. My hon. Friend said at the end of his speech that he was minded to accept this Lords amendment but would reserve judgment until he had heard what I had to say. Given that the House may choose to vote on this group of amendments, Members will be pleased to know that, as far as I can see, it would be sensible for the House to accept the amendment. It is a sensible amendment and it defends people’s freedoms. I remain curious, however, as to why it applies to Canterbury alone, and not to Reading, and I would prefer it to apply to both, but we will just have to live with that on this occasion. However, I advise the House to accept this Lords amendment, as it makes the Bill much better.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that the House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for the expertise he has brought to this discussion.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. We have reached this stage, where we are in a position to vote for an amendment that improves the Bill and protects freedoms, which for me is what this place is all about, only because of the tenacious way in which he has approached the Bill. We should all be indebted to him for the work he has carried out, because when we accept the final group of Lords amendments, as I hope we will, the Bill will be in incredibly better shape than it was when it first came to this House six years ago. So I support these Lords amendments.

Jo Swinson: As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just said, this Bill has been discussed over the past six years, although this is the first contribution I have been able to make to it. Last Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) was an able contributor to the debate. As he said then, the Government do not usually seek to intervene in private legislation and we have done so on this occasion only in order to clarify the issues relating to the European services directive. The Government believe, and have already said to the House, that some aspects of the Pedlars Act 1871 are inconsistent with that directive. We therefore launched a consultation on a change in the national law concerning street trading, and the consultation includes a proposal to repeal that Act. As my hon. Friend told the House on Thursday, the four local authorities whose Bills we are discussing—in this group, this applies to Canterbury in particular—are aware of the consultation. The House will be interested to know that we have decided this week to extend the consultation by a month to allow more time for people to respond, so it will now close on 15 March. The four authorities are aware that they may need to amend their legislation to take account of any changes that the Government propose on street trading. Having provided that useful information to the House, I just say that the Government are content for the Bills to proceed and for these Lords amendments to be made.
	Lords amendment C15 agreed to.
	Lords amendments C16 to C26 agreed to.
	After Clause 17

Provision of Information by the Council

Amendment (e) proposed to Lords amendment C27.—(Mr Chope.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 6, Noes 156.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendments C27 to C31, C2 and C1 agreed to.

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments L1 to L19 agreed to.

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments N1 to N20 agreed to.

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments R1 to R23 agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 13 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—
	(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion,
	(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Eric Pickles relating to Local Government Finance and Council Tax not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later, and
	3) the Motions in the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to Pensions and Social Security not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; proceedings on any of those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Syms.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.—(Mr Syms.)

Hon. Members: Object.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Geraint Davies: It is a great pleasure to rise at this slightly later than anticipated hour to debate the Green Paper on the future electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales.
	I do so against the background of the Government’s wanting to reduce the number of MPs in Wales from 40 to 30 as part of a broader remapping of boundaries which has, I am delighted to say, failed in its attempt to reshape the political map, particularly in Wales but across the country, for party political gain. One of the key problems with that proposal is that it would break the coterminosity in Wales between MPs and Assembly Members. In the knowledge that they were doing that, the Government produced a Green Paper that said, in effect, “Don’t worry about it—we’ll reintroduce the coterminosity as a sort of Trojan horse to bring about a 30:30 arrangement, reducing the number of democratically elected AMs, increasing the list numbers, and changing the prospective balance of power in the Assembly.” That was done without any consultation or collaboration with the Assembly itself—a complete disgrace.

Jessica Morden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he think that given the Prime Minister’s assurance to the First Minister that any changes in Wales should have the consent of the Welsh people, it was pretty outrageous that he just went ahead regardless, which does not say much for any kind of respect agenda?

Geraint Davies: I will be mild in my criticism, but I thought it was completely disgraceful. It showed a great lack of respect for the blossoming new democracy that we have in the nation of Wales, with a Welsh Government doing very good things and the road of devolution moving forwards. Where important decisions can be made locally by the people they affect most, that is what should happen. It was very unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the Prime Minister showed such disrespect to the leader of the Welsh Assembly Government.
	The other propositions in the Green Paper include the idea of a five-year cycle for the National Assembly for Wales detached by a year from Westminster’s five-year cycle. That might be quite sensible on the grounds that it would be unfortunate to have both elections on the same day because there could be confusion in Wales as a result of the media carrying more about UK policies of the Labour party and other parties that may differ from those in Wales. It is important in the interests of effective democracy, and effectively communicating democracy, that the elections do not occur in the same year, and I am therefore minded to support the idea of moving to a five-year cycle displaced by a year.

Mark Williams: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Would he not argue that extending the Assembly’s term—I agree with what he said about the longer-term prognosis for that—so that the elections did not clash was an example
	of the respect agenda in practice? I have some sympathy with what he said earlier, but in this instance we saw the respect agenda in practice.

Geraint Davies: It is a good idea, but that does not mean that it is about the respect agenda. I think that perhaps the idea came from this place without proper consultation and it just so happened that the Welsh Assembly Government agreed with it. Will the Minister tell us whether there was consultation on that part of the Green Paper. My understanding is that there was no consultation on any of it. Was there, in any sense, an element of the respect agenda, or was it just a blind coincidence of view?
	There is also a move towards the resurgence of dual candidacy whereby somebody can stand in a first-past-the-post election and, should they fail, reappear like a vampire figure through the list mechanism and find themselves transposed into the National Assembly without a mandate, having failed to win in the first place. In other words, losers will be winners; I will be talking about Bob Dylan later.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman holds the strong view that the Green Paper was an attempt to gerrymander the political system in Wales. However, the implementation of the double jeopardy rule that prohibits people from standing in the list and in a constituency was the worst kind of gerrymandering by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman proud that the electoral system that we now have for the National Assembly for Wales is mirrored in only one country in the world—Ukraine?

Geraint Davies: It is a shame there is no one from the Ukraine present to speak up for themselves—no disrespect to the Ukraine, but that matter could be taken up in another place, namely the Ukraine.
	On double candidacy, the proposition was put in a manifesto which was voted for in an election. There was a White Paper and it went through a proper system. Of course, it is possible to disagree with something that has been properly considered and passed in a democratic way—I respect that and I am sure that we all share that view—but we are complaining about proposals that were put through in a one-sided and seemingly political way without proper collaboration with the institution that would then have to run the situation, namely the National Assembly for Wales.
	Could the Minister confirm whether the boundary changes are now dead and buried in the aftermath of the vote here, particularly in the light of a Wales Office spokesperson saying that it is now not in anyone’s interests to change the boundaries as proposed by the Green Paper?

Wayne David: The proposed parliamentary boundary changes have been abandoned, which means that £1.5 million has been wasted by this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, should the Minister confirm, as is likely, that the review of the Assembly boundaries is dead and buried, they will have wasted even more money?

Geraint Davies: That is completely right. For a Government who are obsessed with cost cutting, they are wasting money on completely unnecessary new things. Had the changes been made, the lack of coterminosity, the confusion and the bedding in of various challenges would have cost enormous sums of money. The money would have been better spent in Wales on services and jobs for Wales, instead of on administrative expense for the sake of it that has now hit the dust. I want a reassurance that the Government do not plan, certainly in this Parliament, to re-tamper with the boundaries.
	What is the Government’s position on the fixed term? Is the Minister at last consulting and collaborating with the National Assembly for Wales, and do the Government intend to press for five years, which I support in principle?
	I am interested in the issue of double jobbing. There are examples of Assembly Members, MPs and peers who do two of those three jobs at the same time. What is the Minister’s position on that? My instinct is that one should do one job well and that it is very difficult to be in Cardiff and Westminster at the same time, even given modern media. Other people can fill different positions and one can meet up with them to compare notes.
	I have already mentioned double candidacy—what is the Minister’s position on that? Is he hurtling ahead with it without consent or collaboration? Will he push it forward irrespective of the Welsh Assembly Chamber that it will affect?
	This is about balance. There was no consultation on the boundaries, co-determination could have happened, and it is possible for a movement of competence, under the respect agenda, to the Assembly itself. The Silk report is being discussed, so the Minister might want to talk about that. I am sure there will be active engagement in the question of the future arrangements for competence over these issues or, at least, for co-determination. We should move towards giving that competence to the place where the impact of these decisions will be felt, which is, of course, Wales. I want a general reassurance that there will be no further unilateralism that could be construed as gerrymandering.
	Our great forefather Aneurin Bevan saw political economy as a struggle between private property, poverty and democracy, and that at times of economic difficulty democracy would be compressed and would suffer and be undermined by private property stopping poverty getting its fair share. In the pit of this recession, which is being made worse and worse by the Conservative-Liberal alliance, we have seen an attempt on a number of fronts to undermine democracy, to pick away at it and to increase the odds of the retention of power by the incumbents.
	That attempt has included the boundary gerrymandering, the attempt to impose voluntary registration for voters, which was disgraceful and eventually had to be withdrawn, and individual registration. There has been cross-party support for the last measure, but I think that it is unfortunate because 25% of people are functionally illiterate and some households contain many people who cannot speak English, so people often need help to register and participate. The Green Paper, which comes on the back of the attempted boundary changes, is another attempt to change the political balance when things had settled down after a proper democratic process.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend has used the word “gerrymander” a couple of times and he is right to use that term. Does he agree that the bottom line is that the proposed boundary changes for Wales were all about preventing the election of another Labour Administration in Wales? That was the motivation and it has been stopped.

Geraint Davies: The evidence certainly points in that direction. Thankfully, there are different institutions in the United Kingdom that can take forward different policies and ideas. For example, in Wales people can go to university for £3,000 a year or about £10,000 across three years, rather than pay £30,000. In this place, the Conservatives say, “It is impossible to have lower fees. Where would the money come from?” That idea and many others show that there are different ways of doing things. That is healthy for democracy.
	The attempt to use the power that this place has had historically to blunt the blade of innovation in Wales is quite wrong. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that these changes are being proposed for party political gain.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way. I am sure that he will be glad to hear that Gareth Bale has just scored for Wales and that we are beating Austria 1-0.
	There has been cross-party consent in Wales on creating a fairer electoral system. The Richard commission published its report in 2004 and argued for 80 Assembly Members elected by single transferable vote. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that parties across the divide, both here and in the National Assembly, should come together and look again at those proposals?

Geraint Davies: There is a case for having a broad debate about the best way forward. That is part of the Silk discussion and I agree with that. I am surprised that Plaid Cymru’s position is that there should be co-determination as opposed to devolution on these matters. Perhaps that is a change in its position and it is now less devolutionist than I appear to be. That is there for the record.
	I will be helpful and give the Minister time to respond and to answer any questions that other Members may have. Clearly, there are more questions than answers in the aftermath of the great boundary victory—a constitutional change for which we can thank the Liberal Democrats, who are here in abundance. I can barely see the green leather, there are so many of them here tonight!
	We need to move forward with effective democracy. It would help to have coterminosity of seats for Assembly Members and MPs. Obviously that could change in the future. It would be good to have stability in our relationships with constituents and for decisions increasingly to be made where they have the greatest impact.

Stephen Crabb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this Adjournment debate on the Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for the Assembly.
	Hon. Members will recall that we debated the Green Paper in Westminster Hall on 3 July last year. I was not in Westminster Hall for that debate and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was. I have watched the video and read it in Hansard and neither makes for a particularly edifying experience. It was not a particularly good debate, so it is worth revisiting some of the issues this evening.
	Some hon. Members from Wales participated in the consultation and are keen to know where we have has, particularly, as the hon. Member for Swansea West said, in the light of the vote last week on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill—I will come to that in a moment. I was going to say that this debate is timely given that vote, but I will not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has reminded us, it is keeping us all from the football. We are, however, grateful to him for keeping us updated with scores. That might prove to be one of the more interesting points of the debate this evening.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that following last week’s vote in the House the Government will not now take forward the Green Paper proposals on Assembly constituency boundaries. I hope that answers one of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Swansea West. Indeed, the Government have been clear all along that the changes to the make-up of Assembly constituencies proposed in the Green Paper—either reinstating the link between Assembly and parliamentary constituencies, or retaining 40 Assembly constituencies but making them a more equal size—would be predicated on Parliament approving the proposals of the four UK boundary commissions for new parliamentary constituencies.
	The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by stating his delight that the proposals for revised parliamentary constituency boundaries were defeated, but I thought he gave the game away as to his agenda this evening. I think he is throwing up a smokescreen for the vote that he and his colleagues took that evening, which was not only a vote against fairer-sized parliamentary constituencies across Wales and the UK, but a vote against cutting the cost of politics.

Wayne David: The Minister says the motivation was cutting costs but will he explain why his Government are in the process of creating 50 extra peers for the other place?

Stephen Crabb: We will not take any lessons from the Labour party on spending money. The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister in the previous Government and perhaps bears more responsibility than most, in terms of collective responsibility, for some of the decisions taken by that Government with such disastrous financial consequences for this country. We will take no lessons from the Labour party on the good use of resources.
	I think that the hon. Member for Swansea West and his colleagues will come to regret the vote that they took last week, which was, as I have said, against fairer-sized parliamentary constituencies and cutting the cost of politics. Voters want more out of democratic system; they want more value for money and to know that their
	votes count. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has an electorate of 60,000 or 61,000, but some of his colleagues have 94,000, 95,000 or 96,000 constituents. He should be able to see as well as anyone the inbuilt unfairness in the current system of parliamentary boundaries.

Jessica Morden: Has the Minister made any assessment of how much the abortive boundaries review in Wales cost, as well as the mess-up over the ballot papers, the police and crime commissioner elections and the Green Paper process? How much has that all cost Wales in total?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Lady asks a direct question about the cost of the Green Paper consultation and I will give her a direct answer. The consultation on the Green Paper cost just over £3,000. If she or any of her colleagues are tempted to say, “Isn’t that now a waste of money because we are not proceeding with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries?” I remind them that the Green Paper was about a lot more than the shape of constituency boundaries for Assembly elections. Important parts of the consultation still need to be considered, and I will come to that in a moment.

Geraint Davies: The Minister seems to suggest that the Government’s plan was to improve democracy. He will correct me if I am wrong, but the plan that has been mentioned was, in essence, to reduce the number of directly elected MPs from 650 to 600, and increase the number of peers by 50. In other words, to substitute 50 elected Members of Parliament for 50 unelected Members. How can that be democracy? It is ridiculous.

Stephen Crabb: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last year, but he will know it was this Government’s serious intention to see a substantial directly elected proportion of the House of Lords, and there is still a huge appetite for that. As a result of Parliament’s decision to defer the reform of parliamentary constituencies until 2018, it would not be in anyone’s interest to proceed with that aspect of the Green Paper at this stage.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Crabb: I am going to make some progress. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Labour party is using this opportunity for point scoring and attempted grandstanding, rather than for a serious discussion of the issues.
	While the Labour party engages in what has become characteristic negativity, and in the absence of any constructive contribution to the debate from Labour Members, the Government will consider how to take forward the other important proposals in the Green Paper. First, should Assembly terms be increased from four to five years? Secondly, should the prohibition on standing as a candidate in both a constituency and a region be lifted? Thirdly, should Assembly Members be prohibited from sitting in Parliament and from having multiple mandates?

Geraint Davies: Before the Minister answers those important questions, will he confirm that the boundary changes are dead and buried and that there is no plan to introduce further boundary changes in Wales before the
	next election? Following his point about the Lords, will he confirm whether there is a plan to introduce a change to the House of Lords before the next election? I would be very glad to hear that there is such a plan.

Stephen Crabb: I have been clear about the consequences of the vote taken in the House last Tuesday—I was disappointed with the outcome—and that we will not proceed with the aspect of the Green Paper that deals with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries.
	Of the three questions I have highlighted, the most pressing is on the length of Assembly terms. Hon. Members will be aware that, as a result of concerns expressed by the Welsh Government during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Assembly election scheduled for May 2015 was deferred by one year until 2016 to avoid a clash with the next general election. That is a good example of the UK Government listening to the concerns raised by the Welsh Government and, to address another point the hon. Gentleman raised, collaborating with them. That is a one-off change. The two elections are set to coincide again in 2020 unless provision is made to prevent it.
	A majority of respondents to our consultation favoured a move to five-year terms to reduce the likelihood of elections coinciding in future. The decision is a finely balanced one—good arguments have been made in support of both options—but however we decide to proceed, we are mindful that electors in Wales should be clear on how long they are electing their representatives for. Importantly, all four political parties in the Assembly favoured a move to five-year terms. It is worth putting that on the record.
	In the Green Paper, the Government set out our intention to repeal the prohibition on a candidate at an Assembly election standing in both a constituency and a region. All three Opposition parties in the Assembly favoured removing the ban, but I acknowledge that, overall, a small majority favoured retaining the prohibition in their responses to the consultation. A significant majority of respondents agreed with our proposal to prevent Assembly Members from sitting in Westminster.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned competency—that issue was discussed at length during the debate of 3 July 2012. I should point out that the Government are simply operating within the framework that the previous Government set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. As he knows, the Act states that competency and responsibility for electoral arrangements for the Welsh Assembly resides at Westminster. There is a Silk process—part 2 was launched recently, which provides a great opportunity for people who have concerns and other ideas to contribute. The Government have made it clear that we will listen and read very carefully all submissions to Silk part 2. We will announce our response in due course. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but other hon. Members in the Chamber were, and I remind him that they supported the previous Government’s legislation and the framework that retains competency and responsibility for Welsh Assembly elections at UK level.

Wayne David: The Minister indicates that a large part of the Green Paper is redundant because of last week’s events in the House. Will he issue another Green Paper? If not, the consultation was on a largely flawed document.

Stephen Crabb: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We have said that we are not proceeding with one aspect of the package that we consulted on in the Green Paper because of the outcome of last week’s vote. As I have said, Labour Members will, in time, come to regret that vote—it was a vote against fairness in the electoral system and against reducing the costs of politics at a time when the electorate demand more from our democratic system. There are still some very important issues. I highlighted three a few moments ago that we will consider further. It is right that we do that, and we will be making announcements in due course.

Albert Owen: The Minister intends to introduce legislation to this House on those three points on the consultation he has already had, which was to do with the fourth point as well—is that how he foresees taking this measure forward?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and I think he is trying to tempt me to say more than I able to at this stage. The Green Paper presented a package of changes and proposals. As hon. Members recognise, one significant part of the package is not being proceeded with, so we now have to look at the other elements on their own terms and decide how we can proceed with them, and, if we proceed with them, what would be the best legislative vehicle for them. I am not, therefore, in a position to give him all the information he is looking for this evening, but I am sure we will come back to it.

Wayne David: The Minister mentioned that £3,000 had been wasted because a large chunk of his document is now totally irrelevant. Does that £3,000 include the time civil servants spent on the element that has been ditched?

Stephen Crabb: If ever there was a false premise to an intervention, that was one. It was not wasted at all. We had extremely valuable responses to the consultation that will feed into our deliberations about the other parts of the Green Paper package. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. If we were not consulting, he would be the very first Member to stand up and complain about a lack of consultation. We can never win with the Opposition: there is either too much consultation or not enough consultation, or we are going too fast or going too slow. Actually, we think we have the balance right. We are taking the time to do this properly. We know that the most timely part of the changes will be, as I said earlier, the need to make a decision about the length of the Assembly term—whether we move from four years to five years—and we will proceed on that in a timely manner.

Geraint Davies: The Minister may have already answered this, but just to clarify the point about the list and dual candidacy, he mentioned he has had some feedback. I think he said that the feedback was that there should not be dual candidacy. What is his instinct about the way forward, and how will he be collaborating with Cardiff?

Stephen Crabb: The responses to the consultation were mixed. I acknowledged that a majority of correspondents appeared to say that there should not
	be dual candidacy—where somebody is both a candidate on a list and a candidate in a constituency. However, when I read through those responses I have to say that a large number of them seemed to come from the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and seemed to bear a remarkable degree of similarity. They got hauled up recently for copying each other’s press releases. Far be it from me to suggest that some of his colleagues might have been doing that when they responded to the Green Paper.
	In conclusion, I reiterate that the decision not to proceed with changes to Assembly constituencies does not mean an end to all the proposals in the Green Paper. We do not intend to let the significant work we
	have already undertaken go to waste. The work is not wasted—I refute that suggestion made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). These are issues of real importance. We can joke about them as we have done a little this evening, but we need to get them right. It is right that we consulted the people of Wales, and we are considering how best to proceed before announcing our plans. In light of the Commons vote last week, we will announce how we intend to move forward in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned